Climate change or global warming and who did it?

[Edbear]

My brother just sent me this, source unknown, accuracy unknown. Interesting opinion...


>> Finally. Someone telling it like it is.
>>
>> All of you out there across the globe who have fought so hard to
>> tackle the hideous enemy of our planet, namely carbon emissions, you
>> know .......that bogus god you worship of "Climate Change" or
>> "Global Warming"......well, I feel it is necessary to inform you of
>> some bad news. It really does pain me to have to bring you this
>> disappointing information.
>>
>> Are you sitting down?
>>
>> Okay, here's the bombshell. The volcanic eruption in Iceland, since
its
>> first spewing of volcanic ash has, in just FOUR DAYS, NEGATED EVERY
>> SINGLE EFFORT you have made in the past five years to control CO2
>> emissions on our planet - yes, that's what I said......all of you.
>>
>> Of course you know about this evil carbon dioxide that we are trying
>> to suppress - it's that vital chemical compound that every plant
>> requires to live and grow and to synthesise into oxygen for us
>> humans and all animal life.
>>
>> I know, I know.... (group hug)...it's very disheartening to realise
>> that all of the carbon emission savings you have accomplished while
>> suffering the inconvenience and expense of: driving Prius hybrids,
>> buying fabric grocery bags, sitting up till midnight to finish your
>> kid's "The Green Revolution" science project, throwing out all of
>> your non-green cleaning supplies, using only two squares of toilet
>> paper, putting a brick in your toilet tank reservoir, selling your
>> SUV and speedboat, vacationing at home instead of Bali, nearly
>> getting wiped off the planet every day on your bicycle, replacing
>> all of your $1 light bulbs with $10 light bulbs ....well, all of
>> those things you have done, have gone down the tube in just four days.
>>
>> The volcanic ash emitted into the Earth's atmosphere in just four
>> days - yes - FOUR DAYS ONLY by that volcano in Iceland, has totally
>> erased every single effort you have made to reduce the evil beast,
>> carbon. And there are around 200 active volcanoes on the planet
>> spewing out this crud any one time - EVERY DAY. Has a 'greenie' ever
>> told you that? Indeed, do they even know?
>>
>> Oh, I don't really want to rain on your parade too much, but I
>> should mention that when the volcano Mt Pinatubo erupted in the
>> Philippines in 1991, it spewed out more greenhouse gases into the
>> atmosphere than the entire human race had emitted in its entire 40
MILLION YEARS on earth.
>> Yes folks, Mt Pinatubo was active for over one year - think about it.
>>
>> Of course I shouldn't spoil this touchy-feely tree-hugging moment
>> and mention the effect of solar and cosmic activity and the
>> well-recognised 800-year global heating and cooling cycle, which
>> keep happening, despite our completely insignificant efforts to affect
climate change.
>>
>> I'm so sorry. And I do wish I had a silver lining to this volcanic
>> ash cloud but the fact of the matter is that the bush fire season
>> across the western USA and Australia this year alone will negate all
>> your efforts to reduce carbon in our world for the next two to three
>> years. And it happens every year......are you right there? Perhaps take
a seat.
>>
>> Remember that your government is trying to impose a whopping carbon
>> tax on you on the basis of the bogus "human-caused" climate change
scenario.
>> No mention of a Tax on all the emissions caused by Prescribed Bush
>> Fire Burning?
>> The Prescribed forest burning in Victoria alone puts more CO2 into
>> the atmosphere that all power generation in Australia in one year?
>>
>> Hey, isn't it interesting how they don't mention "Global Warming"
>> any more, but just "Climate Change" - you know why? It's because
>> the planet has COOLED by 0.7 degrees in the past century and these
>> global warming bullshit artists got caught with their pants down.
>>
>> And just keep in mind that now the same government is in control,
>> you will have an Emissions Trading Scheme - that whopping new tax -
>> imposed on you, that will achieve absolutely nothing except make you
>> poorer. It won't stop any volcanoes from erupting, or bush fires
>> happening that's for sure!
>> Please pass this on so' everyone can know the truth on the "Global
>> Warming - Climate Change" CON by Governments to introduce a new TAX

[Jantar]

I have seen this before. I'm glad you mentioned "accuracy unknown" because it is far from accurate. What was closer was that the drop in emmissions from grounding all the aircraft almost exactly matched the CO2 put out from that (impossible to pronounce) volcano.

Unfortunately, having inaccurate information like this being used as an argument against the AGW scaremongers just strengthens their case and weakens the science.

[admenk]

This came from the US oil industry perhaps ??:innocent:

[Edbear]

I have seen this before. I'm glad you mentioned "accuracy unknown" because it is far from accurate. What was closer was that the drop in emmissions from grounding all the aircraft almost exactly matched the CO2 put out from that (impossible to pronounce) volcano.

Unfortunately, having inaccurate information like this being used as an argument against the AGW scaremongers just strengthens their case and weakens the science.

It would be nice to have reference to scientific data supporting claims, like how much CO2 was produced by the volcano, and as you say, how much is produced by all the aircraft, or even just the commercial airliners, per day. How much is absorbed by the Earth's vegetation, etc.

I do know the Northern Permafrost is now melting and releasing enormous amounts of CO2 and this will snowball over time and is of course irreversible. The loss to date of over 90% of the world's rainforests must also be having a hugely detrimental effect on climate.

[wysper]

People will believe what they want to believe. Rarely will they let facts get in their way.

The anti climate change will agree with the above.
The pro climate change brigade will trot out their 'facts' in response.

The earth will continue to turn.

[admenk]

The earth will continue to turn.

..or will it ??:shit:

[mashman]

I do know the Northern Permafrost is now melting and releasing enormous amounts of CO2 and this will snowball over time and is of course irreversible. The loss to date of over 90% of the world's rainforests must also be having a hugely detrimental effect on climate.

according to a documenentary I saw recently, the permafrost is also holding an awful lot of methane underneath it too... which, if what the science folk say is true, is a more baderer green house gas than CO2... ah well, it's only the north :shit:

[Edbear]

People will believe what they want to believe. Rarely will they let facts get in their way.

The anti climate change will agree with the above.
The pro climate change brigade will trot out their 'facts' in response.

The earth will continue to turn.

I'd rather find proven scientific data and check that out...

[Scuba_Steve]

I have seen this before. I'm glad you mentioned "accuracy unknown" because it is far from accurate. What was closer was that the drop in emmissions from grounding all the aircraft almost exactly matched the CO2 put out from that (impossible to pronounce) volcano.

Unfortunately, having inaccurate information like this being used as an argument against the AGW scaremongers just strengthens their case and weakens the science.

If I remember right, the amount of emission's from a volcano was steeply decreased after the one in Iceland went off.
Went something like before the volcano 1min of it spewing stuff was like 1yr of all human activity, after it was like total volcano is only like 1 car 1 day (obviously figures are probably off but you get the point)


This came from the US oil industry perhaps ??:innocent:

BP & shell I believe are actually supporting climategate financially in a BIG way

[Devil]

What a load of bollocks.

As an aside, I have spoken to a NIWA technician about the atmosphere data they have collected and brought up the climate change thing. Their response was that there was 'no question' that the place is warming faster than it would normally do so.

[oneofsix]

What a load of bollocks.

As an aside, I have spoken to a NIWA technician about the atmosphere data they have collected and brought up the climate change thing. Their response was that there was 'no question' that the place is warming faster than it would normally do so.

What's normal?

[Edbear]

What a load of bollocks.

As an aside, I have spoken to a NIWA technician about the atmosphere data they have collected and brought up the climate change thing. Their response was that there was 'no question' that the place is warming faster than it would normally do so.

I think the real issue is how much humankind is contributing to the overall picture as against how much is a natural cycle of change.

[Devil]

The planet goes through climate cycles, evidence of that are the ice ages.
Use google from here...

[Devil]

We've got one of the most advanced research stations in the world.
http://www.niwa.co.nz/our-science/atmosphere/lauder

Just sayin that the scientists there are in no doubt that the temperature is changing faster than it should.

[Scuba_Steve]

What a load of bollocks.

As an aside, I have spoken to a NIWA technician about the atmosphere data they have collected and brought up the climate change thing. Their response was that there was 'no question' that the place is warming faster than it would normally do so.

NIWA, the same lot being sued for inaccuracies & data manipulation?

[oneofsix]

The planet goes through climate cycles, evidence of that are the ice ages.
Use google from here...

but the problem is the rate and depth of change keeps changing and modern human has no reliable record of change therefore 'normal' is a best guess based on floored computer models. Ain't it luvely.

I think the real issue is how much humankind is contributing to the overall picture as against how much is a natural cycle of change.
too true and should we really be replacing carbon filament light bulbs for mercury ones given the pollution risks of mercury? etc.

[Devil]

NIWA - Lauder station. The guys collecting the data.

[Devil]

... based on floored computer models. Ain't it luvely.

That'd be flawed, mate. :clap:

[oneofsix]

That'd be flawed, mate. :clap:

does that come under spelling, grammar or just plan stupid?:shutup:

[Edbear]

does that come under spelling, grammar or just plan stupid?:shutup:

Call it a typo... :yes:

[Spearfish]

So there is consensus amongst the scientific community now?

Hmm maybe I will wait until then.

[george formby]

Boing boing boing! That's me jumping up & down that is. :yes:

Lots of things indicate the climate is changing & rapidly, scientists are gathering more & more data from a greater variety of sources & the answer coming out of the computer is the same, tis true.

Natural, man made, a combination of both, giant bees frottaging in the planets core.... Whats the argument?

Who is thinking about how as a species (or even your household) we will deal with these inevitable changes?

I keep having a horrible premonition that in decades to come we will be collectively running around screaming for help & wondering what to do, in between bouts of killing each other.

[admenk]

I keep having a horrible premonition that in decades to come we will be collectively running around screaming for help & wondering what to do, in between bouts of killing each other.

That's what we do now :facepalm:

[imdying]

Meh, I'll be dead by the time it's a problem. Meanwhile, I'm gonna go use some oil up.

[Edbear]

Meh, I'll be dead by the time it's a problem. Meanwhile, I'm gonna go use some oil up.

Do it while you can afford to mate! The price of oil is going to keep rising until it's not affordable anymore. I can see $3 a litre being not too far away... :bye:

[Spearfish]

Boing boing boing! That's me jumping up & down that is. :yes:

Lots of things indicate the climate is changing & rapidly, scientists are gathering more & more data from a greater variety of sources & the answer coming out of the computer is the same, tis true.

Natural, man made, a combination of both, giant bees frottaging in the planets core.... Whats the argument?

Who is thinking about how as a species (or even your household) we will deal with these inevitable changes?

I keep having a horrible premonition that in decades to come we will be collectively running around screaming for help & wondering what to do, in between bouts of killing each other.

So how does paying tax like we do now help or change anything?

[Drunken Monkey]

So how does paying tax like we do now help or change anything?

It makes Al Gore and his carbon trading cronies even richer, that's how it changes things.

[Edbear]

So how does paying tax like we do now help or change anything?

The theory is to encourage development of cleaner, more efficient processes and make polluting expensive. However, the simple fact of rising fuel costs will do the same and have a more immediate and greater effect....

[george formby]

So how does paying tax like we do now help or change anything?

Our taxes are contributing to the argument about whether it's fact or fiction & keeping us cosseted from the really hard issues that need to be faced if we want clean water, healthy food & sustainable energy as the world changes around us.

One thing is for sure, if climate change predictions about weather etc are true ( thinkin of Japan here ) then in the future a lot more of our tax dollars will be spent cleaning up after the latest "natural event".

Even though we live in paradise, it is a very vulnerable wee place to rising sea levels, storms, droughts, floods, volcanic activity etc & we have limited resources to deal with any worsening of these situations. I guess this was the point of my post. A bob both ways from the powers that be & long term investment in disaster relief & aid planning would be a massive asset to this country if things are changing as scientist tell us.

[wysper]

problem with science is it is right (or so they say) until they are wrong.

Which happens all the time.

earth is flat.
earth is x years old. (the age of the earth is constantly changing)
size of the universe
age of the universe

I am not a climate change believer (at least the part about it all being mankinds fault)
Especially when the things that seem to be put in place to arrest climate change are making the rich even richer and giving those in control even more control.

Of course that is just my OPINION.

[mashman]

So how does paying tax like we do now help or change anything?

it helps them to know that they've still got us by the balls and that they don't have to change a thing :)

but i'd like to know the answer to that too :yes:

[Jantar]

NIWA - Lauder station. The guys collecting the data.
NIWA at Lauder does not collect climate data. It is an upper atmosmosphere research station. I have at times had some interesting discussions with Dr Richard McKenzie, the head scientists at Lauder, over this same issue. May I suggest that you ask you technician friends (probably the same ones I know) just what the rate of warming has been over the past 15 years, and which data set they are using for that response.

[Spearfish]

Does anyone know the final resting place of this tax money?
Who gets it, and what is it used for?

Or is NZ just doing it to look like we are doing something to protect our global market share?

[rainman]

So how does paying tax like we do now help or change anything?

We currently pay a "hidden tax" to the oil co's ad other filthy industries by subsidising most of the environmental and social costs of their activities. If they paid their externalities I'd be happy for them to do whatever they want to, but it's all private gain, public cost....

[avgas]

NIWA, the same lot being sued for inaccuracies & data manipulation?
Yeap.....the same ones whom thought it was a good idea to put the weather station next to the AC heat extraction unit on the roof of the head office.

They have evidence that global warming was in effect between 7am and 7pm, Monday to Friday.........:facepalm:

I wish I was kidding about this. :blink::shutup:

[Jantar]

.....
>>
>> Okay, here's the bombshell. The volcanic eruption in Iceland, since
its
>> first spewing of volcanic ash has, in just FOUR DAYS, NEGATED EVERY
>> SINGLE EFFORT you have made in the past five years to control CO2
>> emissions on our planet - yes, that's what I said......all of you......


I have seen this before. I'm glad you mentioned "accuracy unknown" because it is far from accurate. What was closer was that the drop in emmissions from grounding all the aircraft almost exactly matched the CO2 put out from that (impossible to pronounce) volcano.

Unfortunately, having inaccurate information like this being used as an argument against the AGW scaremongers just strengthens their case and weakens the science.

Ok, I've found the data.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.8cc536b2db245bb0c34359dccb86d29 a.161&show_article=1

The volcano spewed between 0.15 an 0.3 MT of CO2 per day. The aviation industry reduced its usage by 0.2 MT per day due to flights being cancelled.

[Jantar]

NIWA, the same lot being sued for inaccuracies & data manipulation?

The court case is over. NIWA conceeded that their Seven Station Series was not an accurate representation of NZs temperature record. They have established a new Seven Station Series that has been reviewed by the Auastralian BoM. The new series still shows nearly 0.9 degrees of warming in New Zealand over 120 years, but most of it was in the early years, and there is almost no warming since 1955. (Despite it including the business day warming recorded at Kelburn).

[puddytat]

Climate change or Global warming & who did it?
Great question there Ed & nothing against you raising it as you strike me as being one of a very few who are worried by it(& rightfully so)but, does it really matter who or what is causing it?
By continuing to split hairs & listening to the sound of ideologies clashing is just wasting precious time me thinks, in getting down to the job at hand of saving this Blue sphere we call home.
One fact that we cant deny is that we are the only thing on the place intelligent enough to do anything about it.....
Another is that we are dumb enough to fuck it also...:facepalm:
What a waste of 40000 generations to get to the point in our species evolution where we can finally use our intelligence to manipulate our ecosystem & its species so that we may not be decimated by things we can or cannot,control.
DOH!!! And all we worry about is the fucking cost!!
Sometimes I feel we really dont deserve it. We may end up a failed experiment in a used up petri dish, in the trash can of history.:blink:

[dipshit]

Sometimes I feel we really dont deserve it. We may end up a failed experiment in a used up petri dish, in the trash can of history.

Quite true. And the universe won't give a fuck.

[Jantar]

...One fact that we cant deny is that we are the only thing on the place intelligent enough to do anything about it..........
Are we? And even if we are, why should we?

If we can't accurately determine the cause of a change, how can we claim to be intelligent enough to do anything about it?

Then when it comes to climate change, the majority of recent resesrch shows that a warmer climate is good for the planet, while a cooler climate is detrimental. Have a look at http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2011/03/23/global-greening-continues-did-we-cause-it/

[Smifffy]

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/TNIz2RV3_Ok" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[Edbear]

Climate change or Global warming & who did it?
Great question there Ed & nothing against you raising it as you strike me as being one of a very few who are worried by it(& rightfully so)but, does it really matter who or what is causing it?
By continuing to split hairs & listening to the sound of ideologies clashing is just wasting precious time me thinks, in getting down to the job at hand of saving this Blue sphere we call home.
One fact that we cant deny is that we are the only thing on the place intelligent enough to do anything about it.....
Another is that we are dumb enough to fuck it also...:facepalm:
What a waste of 40000 generations to get to the point in our species evolution where we can finally use our intelligence to manipulate our ecosystem & its species so that we may not be decimated by things we can or cannot,control.
DOH!!! And all we worry about is the fucking cost!!
Sometimes I feel we really dont deserve it. We may end up a failed experiment in a used up petri dish, in the trash can of history.:blink:

Good post mate! How much is being done by who or what is immaterial, really, the fact is the environment, and by that I include the atmosphere, is being degraded to mankind's detriment. How much we can influence climate change is really out of our hands as I suspect the answer is, "Not much."

What is beyond question though, is the fact that Man is stuffing up his environment faster than it can recover with pollution and raping of land and sea to the point that scientists are now giving us between 30-50 years to possible extinction as a species!

[Woodman]

scientists are now giving us between 30-50 years to possible extinction as a species!

cool, what a rush.

[Winston001]

problem with science is it is right (or so they say) until they are wrong.

Which happens all the time.

earth is flat.
earth is x years old. (the age of the earth is constantly changing)
size of the universe
age of the universe



WRONG

But I understand what you are saying.

The fact is that scientific discovery is a continual refinement of previous knowledge. Yes there have been dramatic changes but mostly centuries ago. Even in Christopher Columbus's day they knew the Earth was round which was why he thought he'd reached India = Red Indians. Pity they don't teach the facts at school.

Scientific opinion is that the planet is warming. What is not so clear is whether humans are causing it - and if we aren't, why have carbon taxes?

The answer is that we are polluting our environment and running out of oil/coal/gas. Carbon taxes make us look at other ways of obtaining energy - ways which are non-polluting.

[mashman]

[SIZE=5]Carbon taxes make us look at other ways of obtaining energy - ways which are non-polluting.

Carbon taxes aren't passed on to the end user then? Because if they are, then there's no incentive to cut emissions... just carry on til it runs out. Tis someone elses problem then :).

[Jantar]

Carbon taxes aren't passed on to the end user then? Because if they are, then there's no incentive to cut emissions... ....

Exactly. :facepalm:

How come the politicians can't see this simple fact?

[puddytat]

Are we? And even if we are, why should we?

If we can't accurately determine the cause of a change, how can we claim to be intelligent enough to do anything about it?

Then when it comes to climate change, the majority of recent resesrch shows that a warmer climate is good for the planet, while a cooler climate is detrimental. Have a look at http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2011/03/23/global-greening-continues-did-we-cause-it/

Yeah I hear you Jantar, but what if the warming goes to far & the frozen methane starts melting (like on Mars) & we get runaway warming?
We may be intelligent enough to come up with some way of making some kind of living space that'll protect us from its effects, but I certainly dont think we're clever enough to be proactive about it.
As to why should we, well think of the children for a start. Or the other miracles of life that we may drag with us. I think weve become to self absorbed with our system & are neglecting the ecosystem. We all jump up & down about climate , when we STILL have done SFA about all the other problems we had before that in themselves ,are enough to be of a concern like POLLUTION & OVERPOPULATION.
Why should we?:facepalm:
The problem is not the WHY, its the WE. Because as a species I dont think that the "We" side of our species really exists anymore ,if it ever did. Its all about the "ME,ME,ME & if it aint about ME then I dont give a fuck" kind of attitude that is essential to this media driven consumerist winner only society that this system is.
I think we are at a pivotal point in our evolution & to take the next step & take our destiny in our hands NOW while we can.
Or we blissfully self medicate it all away.....Or start praying that the Revelation comes....
No, Im not self medicating at the mo.:drool::wacko:

[mashman]

Exactly. :facepalm:

How come the politicians can't see this simple fact?

Because it'll be someone elses problem :) and their shares will fall :)

[Woodman]

The elephant in the room???

Its easy to start making a difference. Try the following:

Only use vehicles for essential purposes. e.g. Don't ride your bike for pleasure.

Remember every little bit helps and we need to start somewhere.

[Jantar]

....I think weve become to self absorbed with our system & are neglecting the ecosystem. We all jump up & down about climate , when we STILL have done SFA about all the other problems we had before that in themselves ,are enough to be of a concern like POLLUTION & OVERPOPULATION.....
I'm with you 100% on that issue. That is why I get upset about the claims of Mann made globull warming, and how man is supposed to be the cause, and about how detrimental it is, while at the same time neglecting the serious problems that our planet does face.

[puddytat]

The elephant in the room???

Its easy to start making a difference. Try the following:

Only use vehicles for essential purposes. e.g. Don't ride your bike for pleasure.

Remember every little bit helps and we need to start somewhere.

Sorry but the meds are kickin' in and I cant decided wether your for real or takin' the piss, but either way Me likey...:laugh::msn-wink:

[Edbear]

...

Only use vehicles for essential purposes. e.g. Don't ride your bike for pleasure.

...

:gob: I thought that was the whole reason for having a bike...!!! :bye:

[Swoop]

Does anyone know the final resting place of this tax money?
Who gets it, and what is it used for?
It all goes to Charlie Sheen to be used on hookers and cocaine. Any other use would be a waste.

scientists are now giving us between 30-50 years to possible extinction as a species!
These would be the same "scientists" who study geology and cannot predict earthquakes?

[imdying]

These would be the same "scientists" who study geology and cannot predict earthquakes?That's nothing... we have people working in simple industries that can't even keep their products in one piece all the time... Boeing, Airbus, etc etc

[Edbear]

It all goes to Charlie Sheen to be used on hookers and cocaine. Any other use would be a waste.

These would be the same "scientists" who study geology and cannot predict earthquakes?

Google dying oceans as a good start. The research I've done shows opinions ranging for the death of the oceans between 30-40 years. Over 40%, that's nearly half, of the commercial fishing catch is dumped as rubbish. The normal fish stocks that we consume, are now becoming so depleted that you can guarantee the price of fish will rise dramatically over the next few years.

I think one scientist reckoned Man may last another 100 years, but most by far predicted a max of 50. Over 90% of the world's rainforests are gone and the remaining is being cut down at the rate of a football field sized area each second!

The most extreme forecast was that within our lifetime, most air-breaething life will be extinct.

[imdying]

I'm not sure why the end of humanity is such a big problem??? Something else will replace it and the world will keep on turning *shrug*

[george formby]

I'm not sure why the end of humanity is such a big problem??? Something else will replace it and the world will keep on turning *shrug*

In the grand scheme of things our extinction & bit of climate change is business as usual for mother Earth.

Deep down I think our reaction is " we fucked up, lets do something so we feel better" and "who cares, show me the money".

Take your pick, the world keeps turning & nothing lasts forever.

[imdying]

Take your pick, the world keeps turning & nothing lasts forever.Ain't that the truth... big meteorite, effects of the moon leaving our orbit, sun going supernova... all the human effort in the world isn't going to prevent extinction eventually. But, given that we'll be well dead by then, an unaware of it, just like the billions before us, what does it actually matter when the actual point of extinction is? Oh yeah, it doesn't!

[marty]

according to a documenentary I saw recently, the permafrost is also holding an awful lot of methane underneath it too... which, if what the science folk say is true, is a more baderer green house gas than CO2... ah well, it's only the north :shit:

cool http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wofv9o0j1Ew&feature=related

[Woodman]

What a clever species we are.

We invent a thing called an economy.
The economy is basically the reason we have fucked the environment therefore dooming us as a species.
We know how to fix the environment but we won't because it will ruin the economy.

Intelligence aye, what a great asset.:facepalm:

[Winston001]

Ain't that the truth... big meteorite, effects of the moon leaving our orbit, sun going supernova... all the human effort in the world isn't going to prevent extinction eventually...

You can relax, mankind won't be extinct any time soon. Consider the above apocalyptic scenarios:



the last great extinction from a meteorite strike was 63 million years ago. That only wiped out the dinosaurs and left all other living forms to carry on.
there is no way the Moon is able to break away from the Earth
the Sun has been burning for 5 billion years and has at least a few hundred million years to go.


In the space of 100 years - a tiny fraction of the Earth's existence, man has gone from discovering electricity to standing on the Moon. In another 100 years man will be standing on Mars and probably the moons of Jupiter. From there Alpha Centauri is only a long flight away and the stars are ours.

We will spread throughout our arm of the Milky Way over the next 1000 years and adapt to become quite different creatures. But we won't go away.

Incidentally...may the Force be with you. :woohoo:

[Berries]

And what planet do you live on ?

[Spearfish]

I have watched a documentary called Star Trek, apparently in the future some dude called Zefram Cochran invents a new engine based on warp drive, I'm not sure what warp drive is but I know is farken fast. Shortly after a few successful flights some pointy eared dudes decide we are advanced enough for "first contact" and there starts the united federation of planets. Shyt hot I say, cheaper bike rego cause ACC communism is out the door!!!

I think the same documentary team filmed something about an "inconvenient truth" as a base for advertising a newly developed currency, carbon. Then subsequent development in a global carbon trading pyramid scheme.

[puddytat]

I read in this book with "Dont Panic" in large friendly letters on the front, that Vogons have a part to play in our demise as well ....



I found as much truth in it as the Bible, but it was a heck of a lot funnier
:yes::killingme

[Spearfish]

I read in this book with "Dont Panic" in large friendly letters on the front, that Vogons have a part to play in our demise as well ....



I found as much truth in it as the Bible, but it was a heck of a lot funnier
:yes::killingme

Now thats going back a bit...

[puddytat]

Yeah it is...came out I think in the same year as the Montreal Accord or agreement:yes:
Something else from the book that is know commonly used by everyone is the
"Someone elses problem Field" device that if I remember correctly works along the lines that when you are confronted with a problem it automatically engages & that problem you had ,becomes someone elses :blink:

[Toaster]

There was a very interesting documentary on this in relation to the formation of our known oil deposits. It focused on the recycling of carbon. From air to creature to dead material to fossil rock to oil, then burned and back into the atmosphere.

In Summary:
Over billions of years the techtonic plates have shifted...

.... billions of creatures died and fell into or were washed into the sea...

... settles on seabed and is buried....

... heat, pressure, time....

... the seabed eventually becones much of the middle east as it is known today...

... hello... oil.

Now for the CO2 bit. As all this material died, the CO2 levels in the atmosphere had increased significantly - all from natural events, like volcanic eruptions etc.

Oxygen levels in the oceans dropped right off creating effectively stagnant oceans.... perfect for the collection of material that eventually becomes oil.

The earth reaches its own tipping point where the warming then ceases and it starts to cool again, the ice comes back etc.

The argument is that we, with all our fossil fuel burning , are merely hurrying the natural process along. How fast that is, is debatable.
Long story made short, but was fascinating nonetheless.

[oneofsix]

I have watched a documentary called Star Trek, apparently in the future some dude called Zefram Cochran invents a new engine based on warp drive, I'm not sure what warp drive is but I know is farken fast. Shortly after a few successful flights some pointy eared dudes decide we are advanced enough for "first contact" and there starts the united federation of planets. Shyt hot I say, cheaper bike rego cause ACC communism is out the door!!!

I think the same documentary team filmed something about an "inconvenient truth" as a base for advertising a newly developed currency, carbon. Then subsequent development in a global carbon trading pyramid scheme.

The original version of that doco had mistakes in it, like the use of interstellar spacecraft in 1997. I didn't notice if the updated version had postponed the launch of the interstellar spacecraft.

They eventually decided currency was a bore and caused wars so did away with it, never worked out how they bought stuff like the latest bikes.

[Spearfish]

The original version of that doco had mistakes in it, like the use of interstellar spacecraft in 1997. I didn't notice if the updated version had postponed the launch of the interstellar spacecraft.

They eventually decided currency was a bore and caused wars so did away with it, never worked out how they bought stuff like the latest bikes.

They used a replicator for any gear they want..imagine the endless fettling!!!

[Spearfish]

Yeah it is...came out I think in the same year as the Montreal Accord or agreement:yes:
Something else from the book that is know commonly used by everyone is the
"Someone elses problem Field" device that if I remember correctly works along the lines that when you are confronted with a problem it automatically engages & that problem you had ,becomes someone elses :blink:

Art imitating life or the tuther way round?

Wasn't there an probability drive as well?

[shrub]

Are we? And even if we are, why should we?

If we can't accurately determine the cause of a change, how can we claim to be intelligent enough to do anything about it?]

*Sighs* I don't think anyone with any expertise in the subject and who is not in the employment of an interested party (read that oil, right wing conservatives etc) has any doubt that the unexpected rise in temperature is cause by human activity, specifically dumping billions of tonnes of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Every new piece of research that comes out strengthens that argument and NOTHING credible has been produced to challenge it. Nothing. Zip. Not a sausage.



Then when it comes to climate change, the majority of recent resesrch shows that a warmer climate is good for the planet, while a cooler climate is detrimental. Have a look at [url]http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2011/03/23/global-greening-continues-did-we-cause-it/[/url

Oh? What research? A blog? with only two references? How the hell is that the majority of recent research?

I can find blogs that claim that Elvis is still alive, that space aliens regularly visit earth and that the world will end in 2012. If you're going to make claims like that use quality, independently verified research conducted by world leading experts. I might even put up a blog that says middle aged Triumph owners are sexually irresistable to women, especially 22 year old blonde Norwegian lingerie models. Will that make it true?

[oneofsix]

*Sighs* I don't think anyone with any expertise in the subject and who is not in the employment of an interested party (read that oil, right wing conservatives etc) has any doubt that the unexpected rise in temperature is cause by human activity, specifically dumping billions of tonnes of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Every new piece of research that comes out strengthens that argument and NOTHING credible has been produced to challenge it. Nothing. Zip. Not a sausage.




Oh? What research? A blog? I can find blogs that claim that Elvis is still alive, that space aliens regularly visit earth and that the world will end in 2012. If you're going to make claims like that use quality, independently verified research conducted by world leading experts. I might even put up a blog that says middle aged Triumph owners are sexually irresistable to women, especially 22 year old blonde Norwegian lingerie models. Will that make it true?

Primary greenhouse gases being carbon, you know the stuff life on earth is made from, and methane, exhaust and decomposition gases. Humans, even in the pro argument, only produce around 1% of these things. The rest comes from natural sources like trees dieing and then decomposing as opposed to being milled and turned into furniture and house or volcanoes.
Earths temp has always had its ups and down, Brittan has very cold in the stone age, then grew grapes in the Roman times and then had the Thames freezing over, I think this was around the industrial revolution but within modern history, and is now warming again.
Climate science is relatively new, and who do you think makes the most $$$ directly from it?? Not the oil industry, they know we will keep buying their stuff until they decided to provide an alternative. Guess who is paying for shit loads of research into alternatives they can sell when the wells run dry, BP and Shell even advertise this fact.

[schrodingers cat]

Human activity is certainly accelerating a natural cycle. The fear is that natural cycle may extinguish us as a species.

The problem as I see it is that there is the idea that humans can stop or even reverse this natural cycle. Rather arrogant I would have thought but politically easier to sell to the masses than a total change in societal behaviour - which ultimately IS required

Human behaviour isn't particulary co-operative. We are a hunter/gatherer by nature and only co-operate in small clans

Do humans deserve to survive as a species? In the big scheme the universe doesn't even care.

[shrub]

The rest comes from natural sources like trees dieing and then decomposing as opposed to being milled and turned into furniture and house or volcanoes. QUOTE]

interesting, I had no idea volcanoes were made out of trees.


[QUOTE]Earths temp has always had its ups and down, Brittan has very cold in the stone age, then grew grapes in the Roman times and then had the Thames freezing over, I think this was around the industrial revolution but within modern history, and is now warming again.

The difference is that those periods of climate change can be explained by natural phenomena.



Climate science is relatively new, and who do you think makes the most $$$ directly from it?? Not the oil industry, they know we will keep buying their stuff until they decided to provide an alternative. Guess who is paying for shit loads of research into alternatives they can sell when the wells run dry, BP and Shell even advertise this fact

Actually climate science has been around for centuries and nobody makes money from it. In fact it actually costs a bloody fortune. And I guess if BP and Shell say something then we need to listen and agree, for they are our masters.

[shrub]

Human activity is certainly accelerating a natural cycle.

Without human activity we'd be in a cooling phase right now.

[george formby]

Art imitating life or the tuther way round?

Wasn't there an probability drive as well?

IIR Slartibardfast's ship used Bistromatics as drive, he designed the Fjords you know.:yes:

[oneofsix]

Without human activity we'd be in a cooling phase right now.

I don't think so. I don't believe it got warm enough to have gone into a cooling phase. But then again perhaps I watch too many history programmes, need to ride more.

[Scuba_Steve]

Actually climate science has been around for centuries and nobody makes money from it. In fact it actually costs a bloody fortune. And I guess if BP and Shell say something then we need to listen and agree, for they are our masters.

Umm people are making ALOT of money off "climate change" if your a scientist this is where the $$$ at & Al Gore was the worlds 1st "climate change" tycoon making over $1bil off it also it appears you are listening to Shell & BP they are big financiers behind climategate & I can assure you it's not for "the good of the planet", there's moneys to be made in that them there propaganda :yes:


Actually without human activity we'd be in a cooling phase right now.

my suggestion to you is get rid of you microwave oven, cell phone, wireless networks, TV's, Radios effectively anything that uses wireless communication/microwaves it's all heating :shutup:

[shrub]

I don't think so. I don't believe it got warm enough to have gone into a cooling phase. But then again perhaps I watch too many history programmes, need to ride more.

If you look at all the factors that can cause warming or cooling and exclude human activity we're in a mild cooling phase right now.

[shrub]

Umm people are making ALOT of money off "climate change" if your a scientist this is where the $$$

Yes, it's seen by governments as being an area demanding immediate attention so research funding is more likely to be available for climate change than, say, the sexual habits of goldfish. My area of specialty is business sustainability and that's another area where there is plenty of funding and there is a shitload of well paid work in the field compared to something like selling fax machines.


at & Al Gore was the worlds 1st "climate change" tycoon making over $1bil off

Ah yes, Al Gore's money. Funny how making money is seen as a totally noble pursuit unless it's made by Al Gore.

[schrodingers cat]

Without human activity we'd be in a cooling phase right now.

Ok then - Human activity is altering a natural cycle.

The human race is very adaptable. If the cycle changes too quickly than we may not be able to adapt quickly enough. I turn on the news every night and think that might be a good thing

[Spearfish]

Yes, it's seen by governments as being an area demanding immediate attention so research funding is more likely to be available for climate change than, say, the sexual habits of goldfish. My area of specialty is business sustainability and that's another area where there is plenty of funding and there is a shitload of well paid work in the field compared to something like selling fax machines.



Ah yes, Al Gore's money. Funny how making money is seen as a totally noble pursuit unless it's made by Al Gore.

Depends if you believe if Al Gore's alternative religion is good salesmanship or just plain theft?

Your probably on to something with "nobility" though, Bill Gates and Paul Allen were almost as successful at scaring a government but not on the global scale anthropogenic global warming has.

Any scientist struggling for finance into their field of study only have to add ".............and the effects on global warming" to the end of the research title and away they go coin a plenty.

[Jantar]

Without human activity we'd be in a cooling phase right now.

Maybe we are:

Dr. Phil Jones email – July, 2005
“The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isn’t statistically significant.”

Dr. Phil Jones interview – February, 2010
Roger Harrabin – “Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming”

Phil Jones – “Yes, but only just.”

So 15 years of no significant warming yet CO2 concentrations have continued to climb? How does the AGW theory gel with that?

[Scuba_Steve]

Yes, it's seen by governments as being an area demanding immediate attention so research funding is more likely to be available for climate change than, say, the sexual habits of goldfish. My area of specialty is business sustainability and that's another area where there is plenty of funding and there is a shitload of well paid work in the field compared to something like selling fax machines.

But science is there to prove, it is not supposed to be biased, yet you'll find anyone with models showing something other than "humans are the cause for everything & need to be taxed" don't make anywhere near the $$$ as those who will say "they are the cause & do need to be taxed".

[shrub]

Ok then - Human activity is altering a natural cycle.

The human race is very adaptable. If the cycle changes too quickly than we may not be able to adapt quickly enough. I turn on the news every night and think that might be a good thing

Sadly the complex ecosystem we depend on is not quick to adapt, but you and I will be fine - or will we?


Depends if you believe if Al Gore's alternative religion is good salesmanship or just plain theft?

Ah, the "AGW is religion" spin. Have you ever wondered why so many fundamentalist christian groups are so vehemently opposed to AGW? Or how the least religious and most rational people (scientists) agree? I love how deniers think science is religion. And how is a commercial transaction theft?


Any scientist struggling for finance into their field of study only have to add ".............and the effects on global warming" to the end of the research title and away they go coin a plenty.

I wish it were that easy, really I do. I love people with no understanding of science.



Maybe we are:

Dr. Phil Jones email – July, 2005
“The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isn’t statistically significant.”

Dr. Phil Jones interview – February, 2010
Roger Harrabin – “Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming”

Phil Jones – “Yes, but only just.”

So 15 years of no significant warming yet CO2 concentrations have continued to climb? How does the AGW theory gel with that?

Come on mate, I wouldn't insult you by throwing a few out of context quotes to support an argument. If you can't support your position with anything of substance I suggest you either give up or resort to complaining about tax or Al Gore's power bill.



But science is there to prove, it is not supposed to be biased, yet you'll find anyone with models showing something other than "humans are the cause for everything & need to be taxed" don't make anywhere near the $$$ as those who will say "they are the cause & do need to be taxed".

Another person with no understanding of science trying to debate a scientific subject - a bit like my daughter arguing about bikes. Science is not there to prove anything because outside of mathematics NOTHING can be proven. Hell, even gravity is only a theory. Science is there to ask questions, explore and explain, and science is innately unbiased, and that is where you have your problem. You want science to say "climate change is not caused by human activity, so you won't have to pay taxes and shit", but it doesn't. Science reports on wand explains observed phenomena, and that really sucks at times, but life's like that.

And on that note, I doubt I'll waste any more time on this thread. You have amused me and I'm just glad that the people who matter - business and political leaders - are a little better informed.

[Scuba_Steve]

Sadly the complex ecosystem we depend on is not quick to adapt, but you and I will be fine - or will we?

Ah, the "AGW is religion" spin. Have you ever wondered why so many fundamentalist christian groups are so vehemently opposed to AGW? Or how the least religious and most rational people (scientists) agree? I love how deniers think science is religion. And how is a commercial transaction theft?

I wish it were that easy, really I do. I love people with no understanding of science.

Come on mate, I wouldn't insult you by throwing a few out of context quotes to support an argument. If you can't support your position with anything of substance I suggest you either give up or resort to complaining about tax or Al Gore's power bill.

Another person with no understanding of science trying to debate a scientific subject - a bit like my daughter arguing about bikes. Science is not there to prove anything because outside of mathematics NOTHING can be proven. Hell, even gravity is only a theory. Science is there to ask questions, explore and explain, and science is innately unbiased, and that is where you have your problem. You want science to say "climate change is not caused by human activity, so you won't have to pay taxes and shit", but it doesn't. Science reports on wand explains observed phenomena, and that really sucks at times, but life's like that.

And on that note, I doubt I'll waste any more time on this thread. You have amused me and I'm just glad that the people who matter - business and political leaders - are a little better informed.

:blink: Wow you are really sucked into this religion aint you? :facepalm:

[Woodman]

This is how I see it.

We humans are living off all the decomposed trees and animals that have turned into oil over the last fcuk knows how many years. We are using the oil as currency and to power our factories economies and toys. We are so happy and obsessed with growth that we are overpopulating the planet to the extent we are burning up all the oil whilst cutting down all the trees which are the only things that can deal with the carbon that we are producing.

Do not panic because at about the same time we run out of oil, the planet will be so unsustainably overpopulated that we will all die (while arguing about who is at fault) and all our bodies will sink into the oceans and turn into oil and then one day we will have oil again to start the process over.

No worries

[mashman]

Science is not there to prove anything because outside of mathematics NOTHING can be proven.


After i set your plastic jebus on fire, it will have melted from a solid into a liquid and then will turn back to a solid again. I can prove that without the use of mathematics :shifty:


You have amused me and I'm just glad that the people who matter - business and political leaders - are a little better informed.

:shit:

[puddytat]

IIR Slartibardfast's ship used Bistromatics as drive, he designed the Fjords you know.:yes:

That ship that Zaphod Beeblebrox pinched used the "Infinite improbability Drive" if I remember correctly,which was an idea that was so astoundingly improbable & unlikely to work ,.... & that is exactly why it worked so improbably & impossibly well:yes:
A bit like the argument that Humans are having no impact on the Planet eh :yes:
And maybe thats why God may exist too as scientifactly its rather improbable.:shit:
Recently they discovered that Slarti was also was responsible for Fiordland:blink:

[Winston001]

Do not panic because at about the same time we run out of oil, the planet will be so unsustainably overpopulated that we will all die (while arguing about who is at fault) and all our bodies will sink into the oceans and turn into oil and then one day we will have oil again to start the process over.


Yes, overpopulation is the greatest immediate risk to humanity. Famine war disease. We won't all die. Humans are remarkably adaptable and survive in extraordinary conditions. Technology won't disappear. There will be less of us and they will be far better off than we are today.

Still...its poignant and compelling to visualise unrest in times to come. From about 2029 onwards.

[mashman]

Yes, overpopulation is the greatest immediate risk to humanity. Famine war disease. We won't all die. Humans are remarkably adaptable and survive in extraordinary conditions. Technology won't disappear. There will be less of us and they will be far better off than we are today.

Still...its poignant and compelling to visualise unrest in times to come. From about 2029 onwards.

Potential flip side. Technology could disappear depending on who's left. After all when something breaks, someone needs to understand how to fix it, or may need to know how to extract/combine "minerals" to build the component.

I reckon before 2020, perhaps even as early as 2015 as that unrest you're talking about, is very much in evidence in just about every country in the world.

[Woodman]

I reckon before 2020, perhaps even as early as 2015 as that unrest you're talking about, is very much in evidence in just about every country in the world.

Lucky then that we live in a country that is underpopulated and the population that is here basically don't give a shit enough to cause any civil unrest.

[mashman]

Lucky then that we live in a country that is underpopulated and the population that is here basically don't give a shit enough to cause any civil unrest.

So we've got good safe seats then :)

[Spearfish]

Ah, the "AGW is religion" spin. Have you ever wondered why so many fundamentalist christian groups are so vehemently opposed to AGW? Or how the least religious and most rational people (scientists) agree? I love how deniers think science is religion. And how is a commercial transaction theft?

I wish it were that easy, really I do. I love people with no understanding of science.




A lot of scienticians are religious. E=mc2 was written by a dude with heavily bruised knees.
Some say people with strong left views will support AGW those right don't but then that's like saying the left wing live in the world they imagine it to be, where as the right wing live in the world how it really is.

You don't have to know every detail to know there is a problem with consensus amongst proponents of either side so I'm keeping an open mind but some of the antics of the proponents are not helping the debate.

Its all ok though, the UN has passed a resolution, the temp of this planet wont go up so "No worries aye" so no more volcanic activity or altering wiki pages to hide historic warm periods either.
In support of global warming I'm using FD rated 2smoker oil instead of FC we all should do our part....

[Indiana_Jones]

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/07b53M07jck" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

-Indy

[shrub]

After i set your plastic jebus on fire, it will have melted from a solid into a liquid and then will turn back to a solid again. I can prove that without the use of mathematics

No, you will have proven nothing. You will have observed something, namely that my blessed Plastic Jesus of The Doorframe will have melted and then returned to solid. You will no doubt hypothesise that this happened because you set Him alight, but you may be wrong. Ken Ring may have cast a spell to melt Our Lord at the exact time he predicted an earthquake, which coincidentally was when you set Him on fire. So you will need to repeat the experiment isolating an independent variable (ken Ring).

Nothing outside of mathematics can be proven, however the role of a scientist is to identify the most likely explanation for a phenomenon. In the case of the current changes to global climate patterns and the consistent rise in mean temperatures scientists have looked at every possible cause and identified that the most likely cause is human activity, specifically the dumping of huge amounts of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. They may be wrong, but I am unaware of any credible studies by any scientists working in relevant fields that challenge that hypothesis. Sure there are thousands of people with all kinds of letters after their names that throw up all kinds of arguments, but none that I have seen stand up to even the slightest scrutiny and from what I have observed almost none of these "experts" have expertise in the relevant field.

However they convince the gullible and poorly informed, and provide endless meaningless debate on a thousand internet discussion boards.

[Scuba_Steve]

but I am unaware of any credible studies by any scientists working in relevant fields that challenge that hypothesis. Sure there are thousands of people with all kinds of letters after their names that throw up all kinds of arguments, but none that I have seen stand up to even the slightest scrutiny and from what I have observed almost none of these "experts" have expertise in the relevant field.

However they convince the gullible and poorly informed, and provide endless meaningless debate on a thousand internet discussion boards.

Dude here I was thinking your were supporting climategate, must have got it wrong cause here you are pointing out exactly why its nicknamed climategate

[oneofsix]

No, you will have proven nothing. You will have observed
Nothing outside of mathematics can be proven, however the role of a scientist is to identify the most likely explanation for a phenomenon. In the case of the current changes to global climate patterns and the consistent rise in mean temperatures scientists have looked at every possible cause and identified that the most likely cause is human activity, specifically the dumping of huge amounts of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. They may be wrong, but I am unaware of any credible studies by any scientists working in relevant fields that challenge that hypothesis. Sure there are thousands of people with all kinds of letters after their names that throw up all kinds of arguments, but none that I have seen stand up to even the slightest scrutiny and from what I have observed almost none of these "experts" have expertise in the relevant field.

However they convince the gullible and poorly informed, and provide endless meaningless debate on a thousand internet discussion boards.

leaving out the idol worship thingy. Long live plastics.
Nothing outside maths can be proven ... spoken like a mathematician. I think therefore I am.
The most likely cause was decided by people who set out to prove an hypothesis, they discovered a money tree and more got on board. Step back and see if their hypothesis is supported by others without the axe to grind and it comes under pressure.
To be accepted as an "expert in the relevant field" the said 'expert' has to support the climate change is caused by man or else the supporters of this theory point out that they have come from another field. If they support the hypothesis they are accepted into the fold and duly anointed an expert in climate change. Sounds just like a religion or society, the new masons perhaps. If an archaeologist happens to uncover natural climate changes that don't align with the human caused model they can be safely ignored cause they aren't experts in the field whereas I would rather look at their evidence cause they don't have an axe to grind. Sometimes it pays to step away from the books and look at the world.

[shrub]

leaving out the idol worship thingy. Long live plastics.
Nothing outside maths can be proven ... spoken like a mathematician. I think therefore I am.
The most likely cause was decided by people who set out to prove an hypothesis, they discovered a money tree and more got on board. Step back and see if their hypothesis is supported by others without the axe to grind and it comes under pressure.
To be accepted as an "expert in the relevant field" the said 'expert' has to support the climate change is caused by man or else the supporters of this theory point out that they have come from another field. If they support the hypothesis they are accepted into the fold and duly anointed an expert in climate change. Sounds just like a religion or society, the new masons perhaps. If an archaeologist happens to uncover natural climate changes that don't align with the human caused model they can be safely ignored cause they aren't experts in the field whereas I would rather look at their evidence cause they don't have an axe to grind. Sometimes it pays to step away from the books and look at the world.

Gotta love conspiracy theorists! :yes:

You need to get out more.

[oneofsix]

Gotta love conspiracy theorists! :yes:

You need to get out more.

religion is a great thing as it brings out all the best arguments.

[shrub]

religion is a great thing as it brings out all the best arguments.

Really? I thought it brought out the ignorant and naive.

[mashman]

No, you will have proven nothing. You will have observed something


Like you say, i may have hypothesised what the outcome might have been, i may have just been experimenting because i like fire, but there is no doubt that PJ went from a solid state, to a liquid state and back to solid again, ergo Proven start-middle-end. Some scientists won't be happy with the FACT, so they'll theorise as to why this happened and won;t accept the proof that it has happened until they can scientifically prove it. Kinda stupid really.

The world is heating up, let's find out why :killingme... pissing in the wind much :yes: Closing my eyes may well have meant that i'd miss the melting phase of PJ and that i'd have to hypothesise as to how PJ is now flat and not lucking so pretty... that sounds awful familiar :innocent:

Pro-climate folk may well be correct and we are having an influence on the "changes" of the planet, but they can't measure to what degree and if they can't measure that value (which just so happens to be impossible), then it may well be 0.000001% and we'd be better off spending the money by using those keen scientific minds on other things instead of chasing unicorns.

[avgas]

Really? I thought it brought out the ignorant and naive.
Sadly science is a "religion" if you don't listen to others. So I guess your both right.

[shrub]

Sadly science is a "religion" if you don't listen to others. So I guess your both right.

Nope, religion and science are diametrically opposed, which is why the church has long tried to block science and the use of scientific reason - climate change is the latest case, before that we had the sun revolving around the earth, creationism vs evolution, the existence of god etc

[shrub]

The world is heating up, let's find out why.

That's what we've been doing for several decades, and just like the most likely reason Plastic Messiah resulting in Him melted was because you applied heat, the most likely reason for the rise in global mean temperatures with the attendant change in climate is because of the massive amounts of greenhouse gases we have emitted. Sure, it may be because of other reasons, just like my jesus melting may have been caused by Ken Ring, but none of the other reasons have stood up to detailed scrutiny.

[Scuba_Steve]

Nope, religion and science are diametrically opposed, which is why the church has long tried to block science and the use of scientific reason - climate change is the latest case, before that we had the sun revolving around the earth, creationism vs evolution, the existence of god etc

:killingme:killingme:killingme:rofl: I'm sorry, but your an idiot :facepalm:

[oneofsix]

That's what we've been doing for several decades, and just like the most likely reason Plastic Messiah resulting in Him melted was because you applied heat, the most likely reason for the rise in global mean temperatures with the attendant change in climate is because of the massive amounts of greenhouse gases we have emitted. Sure, it may be because of other reasons, just like my jesus melting may have been caused by Ken Ring, but none of the other reasons have stood up to detailed scrutiny.

If Mashman is on the other side of the room with his bic lighter pointed at PJ and I'm next to PJ with a blow torch pointed across but in front of PJ who is most likely to have caused PJ to have melted. By the climate science argument it was Mashman.

[Edbear]

If Mashman is on the other side of the room with his bic lighter pointed at PJ and I'm next to PJ with a blow torch pointed across but in front of PJ who is most likely to have caused PJ to have melted. By the climate science argument it was Mashman.

:blink: :blink: :blink:

[shrub]

:killingme:killingme:killingme:rofl: I'm sorry, but your an idiot :facepalm:

Run out of arguments huh? :yes:

[mashman]

That's what we've been doing for several decades, and just like the most likely reason Plastic Messiah resulting in Him melted was because you applied heat, the most likely reason for the rise in global mean temperatures with the attendant change in climate is because of the massive amounts of greenhouse gases we have emitted. Sure, it may be because of other reasons, just like my jesus melting may have been caused by Ken Ring, but none of the other reasons have stood up to detailed scrutiny.


And badly by the sounds of things. I'd venture that the other reasons, by far, outweigh our heat generation by emmission. We pollute our atmoshpere and rivers etc... I accept that, i detest it with a passion, but i only accept that that is what we're doing to the QUALITY of air and water, not the temperature. So, I don't accept that greenhouse gases are the most likely reason for global mean temperatures. I'd pick the Earth's Core changing temp for starters, then move on to the Sun... and as they don't know what the true temperature of either Core or Sun is, then i'd call pissing in the wind in regards to the "blankets" of CO2 or Methane trapping heat down here... I could accept that argument if the Earth didn't have wind flows, allowing "blankets" to actually form, but that just isn't the case. So how do Methane and CO2 trap heat in the face of constant winds?

[oneofsix]

And badly by the sounds of things. I'd venture that the other reasons, by far, outweigh our heat generation by emmission. We pollute our atmoshpere and rivers etc... I accept that, i detest it with a passion, but i only accept that that is what we're doing to the QUALITY of air and water, not the temperature. So, I don't accept that greenhouse gases are the most likely reason for global mean temperatures. I'd pick the Earth's Core changing temp for starters, then move on to the Sun... and as they don't know what the true temperature of either Core or Sun is, then i'd call pissing in the wind in regards to the "blankets" of CO2 or Methane trapping heat down here... I could accept that argument if the Earth didn't have wind flows, allowing "blankets" to actually form, but that just isn't the case. So how do Methane and CO2 trap heat in the face of constant winds?

Oh MY Mashman don't you realise you are a heretic? :gob: We have to stop producing our 1% of the yearly carbon emissions or we will all diiiie. We must instead pollute the place with mercury, lead and radiative particles than risk another carbon atom escaping a cow's backside. :facepalm:

Please resume normal transmission.

[george formby]

And badly by the sounds of things. I'd venture that the other reasons, by far, outweigh our heat generation by emmission. We pollute our atmoshpere and rivers etc... I accept that, i detest it with a passion, but i only accept that that is what we're doing to the QUALITY of air and water, not the temperature. So, I don't accept that greenhouse gases are the most likely reason for global mean temperatures. I'd pick the Earth's Core changing temp for starters, then move on to the Sun... and as they don't know what the true temperature of either Core or Sun is, then i'd call pissing in the wind in regards to the "blankets" of CO2 or Methane trapping heat down here... I could accept that argument if the Earth didn't have wind flows, allowing "blankets" to actually form, but that just isn't the case. So how do Methane and CO2 trap heat in the face of constant winds?

Now that would depend on the type of wind..

Wind circulates at different speeds & different directions at different altitudes.

It was stated recently that we would not see any fall out from Fukushima because it's impossible for airborne particles to cross the equator. The winds either side are traveling in opposite directions. Freaky, but true.

Erm, as an after thought. Their is no wind in a vacuum so the methane & C02 must be constituents of the atmosphere, moving or not.

[oneofsix]

It was stated recently that we would not see any fall out from Fukushima because it's impossible for airborne particles to cross the equator. The winds either side are traveling in opposite directions. Freaky, but true.

yeah I've read Nevil Shute's On the Beach. Not a bad book in its day.

[george formby]

yeah I've read Nevil Shute's On the Beach. Not a bad book in its day.

Never had the pleasure, enlighten me please.

[mashman]

Oh MY Mashman don't you realise you are a heretic? :gob: We have to stop producing our 1% of the yearly carbon emissions or we will all diiiie. We must instead pollute the place with mercury, lead and radiative particles than risk another carbon atom escaping a cow's backside. :facepalm:

Please resume normal transmission.

Then I should be burned in the most carbon and gas neutral way as possible.

[shrub]

And badly by the sounds of things. I'd venture that the other reasons, by far, outweigh our heat generation by emmission. We pollute our atmoshpere and rivers etc... I accept that, i detest it with a passion, but i only accept that that is what we're doing to the QUALITY of air and water, not the temperature. So, I don't accept that greenhouse gases are the most likely reason for global mean temperatures. I'd pick the Earth's Core changing temp for starters, then move on to the Sun... and as they don't know what the true temperature of either Core or Sun is, then i'd call pissing in the wind in regards to the "blankets" of CO2 or Methane trapping heat down here... I could accept that argument if the Earth didn't have wind flows, allowing "blankets" to actually form, but that just isn't the case. So how do Methane and CO2 trap heat in the face of constant winds?

Actually all they've done badly is understimate the fear their findings have caused in the denialist community and the amount of effort, money and skill that has gone into an extensive and very clever PR campaign; and that was reprehensible. The same tactics were used (and often by the same PR people) by the tobacco industry to try and discredit the evidence that cigarette smoking was dangerous, and they should have expected it. But they didn't, and that's where they fucked up.

Bloody scientists, they have no idea how gullible and easily swayed even intelligent people can be.

[Winston001]

Sadly science is a "religion" if you don't listen to others. So I guess your both right.

No no no. The discipline of science is diametrically opposed to religion. That doesn't mean religion is wrong or irrelevant, it is simply different being concerned with human behaviour and spiritual reflection.

Science by contrast is concerned with endless questioning and testing of the physical world. For example, Newton said Mercury would appear from behind the Sun at a certain time. 200 years later Einstein wondered about this and correctly predicted Mercury would appear early. It did. Thus Newton's principles of gravity were nailed down further and in more detail. Newton was roughly right, he just didn't know enough and telescopes weren't up to the job in the 18th century.

Humans contribute about 4% of carbon release. Not a lot but plenty more than 1%.

The central problem is pollution. Burning oil/coal/gas poisons the environment. We are lucky in NZ, it isn't visible or a problem here. Go anywhere in Asia and you'll be living in the South-Asia Plume. Its a vast cloud of brown pollution from Pakistan across to South China and south.

I was in New Delhi and Mumbai 3 years ago. I could see 400m most of the time. The whole continent of India is smog.

So...cutting down carbon intensive activities is a no brainer. Naturally we won't do that. :blink:

[mashman]

Actually all they've done badly is understimate the fear their findings have caused in the denialist community and the amount of effort, money and skill that has gone into an extensive and very clever PR campaign; and that was reprehensible. The same tactics were used (and often by the same PR people) by the tobacco industry to try and discredit the evidence that cigarette smoking was dangerous, and they should have expected it. But they didn't, and that's where they fucked up.

Bloody scientists, they have no idea how gullible and easily swayed even intelligent people can be.


I wouldn't say that deniers have their opinions based on fearful findings... what gives them that impression? The deniers usually have bloody good reasons to question the data and data modelling methods that are being used to predict the future, yes the future, and by default casting a whacking great big shadow over the results/findings. Oh we've recalculated the X and Y based on the new finding of Z, and it matches the previous line through scatter graph model, so it must be correct :facepalm:. And you think it's fear that drives the deniers?

You don't have to be intelligent, i think i've proven that :), to see the flaws in the prediction models being used. You would have thought the scientists would have known this, being so intelligent and all, and would have tried a little harder :shifty:

[Spearfish]

I remember way back when fridge gas was the big one.
Now its carbon.
next week it will be fridge magnets....

[Woodman]

Reading all you guys posts just reconfirms to me that nothing will ever get done about what we are doing to this place. Don't get me wrong your views are interesting and well documented but basically analysis paralysis.

The only thing that will save us is some sort of dictatorship or military power that is willing to save the place by force. You cut down a rainforest you get shot, simple as that. You overfish a seabed, you get shot. Easy.
The boffins and spineless politicians, both who have dubious agendas have had their day.

[jonbuoy]

I remember way back when fridge gas was the big one.
Now its carbon.
next week it will be fridge magnets....

You ever wondered why you have to wear so much sunscreen in NZ?

[Spearfish]

You ever wondered why you have to wear so much sunscreen in NZ?

No, but we don't lead the world with an ozone tax do we?

[jonbuoy]

No, but we don't lead the world with an ozone tax do we?

They can´t ban carbon like they did CFC´s until there is an alternative. I guess their thinking is that businesses won´t start cutting down until they get hit in the spreadsheet. Although one look at Las Vegas and Chinese industrial areas makes taxing cows for farting a bit ridiculous and teaching the kids to put their cans in the recycling bin a bit futile.

[oneofsix]

I remember way back when fridge gas was the big one.
Now its carbon.
next week it will be fridge magnets....

by calling it 'fridge gas' you miss the connection. It was fluro-CARBONS and now its CARBON. And the same guy started both panics. I think this guy just hates carbon. He did get a Noble Award for saving the planet from fridge gas, then he was proved wrong :shutup:

[jonbuoy]

by calling it 'fridge gas' you miss the connection. It was fluro-CARBONS and now its CARBON. And the same guy started both panics. I think this guy just hates carbon. He did get a Noble Award for saving the planet from fridge gas, then he was proved wrong :shutup:

Was he proved wrong?

[shrub]

They can´t ban carbon like they did CFC´s until there is an alternative. I guess their thinking is that businesses won´t start cutting down until they get hit in the spreadsheet. Although one look at Las Vegas and Chinese industrial areas makes taxing cows for farting a bit ridiculous and teaching the kids to put their cans in the recycling bin a bit futile.


It's already starting to happen - or more to the point the world's business leaders are all taking climate change very, very seriously because they're smart enough to recognise that if they don't they won't be business leaders for too much longer. In a recent opinion survey of the world's leading CEOs, 93% said climate change was the biggest challenge to the long term viability of their businesses and needed immediate attention. Unlike people on internet message boards these guys are smart enough not to listen to spin doctors and to listen to the people who have done the research.


Reading all you guys posts just reconfirms to me that nothing will ever get done about what we are doing to this place. Don't get me wrong your views are interesting and well documented but basically analysis paralysis.

See above. Increasingly business leaders are waking up to the realisation that things have to change.


I wouldn't say that deniers have their opinions based on fearful findings... what gives them that impression?

For many businesses a major fear is that they will be required to pay for the waste they dump in the atmosphere (just like you and I pay to take a ute load of crap to the dump) and that would impact severely on their bottom line and they would lose competiveness or even viability. If there wasn't the kind of doubt that their campaign has sown it would be easy for governments to demand that all businesses pay for all their waste disposal including emission of greenhouse gases or even legislate against the major polluters.

And a hell of a lot of businesses are capitalising on the ability to pollute freely in India and China. If the west were required to clean up their act pressure would soon be placed on developing nations, and that would really hurt a lot of businesses. Even though the overwhelming majority of global business leaders acknowledge the gravity of the situation, there are many that don't and some that do who would like to be free to pollute for a little longer.

[Spearfish]

So rather than Carbon Tax 4.5million New Zealanders and send the money way off shore to a remote far flung part of the planet to pay for computers, beakers, office space, cars, staff, research grants, some geek to keep rewriting wiki, advertising, movie star endorsements, documentary's etc why not keep the money in house?

[mashman]

For many businesses a major fear is that they will be required to pay for the waste they dump in the atmosphere (just like you and I pay to take a ute load of crap to the dump) and that would impact severely on their bottom line and they would lose competiveness or even viability. If there wasn't the kind of doubt that their campaign has sown it would be easy for governments to demand that all businesses pay for all their waste disposal including emission of greenhouse gases or even legislate against the major polluters.

And a hell of a lot of businesses are capitalising on the ability to pollute freely in India and China. If the west were required to clean up their act pressure would soon be placed on developing nations, and that would really hurt a lot of businesses. Even though the overwhelming majority of global business leaders acknowledge the gravity of the situation, there are many that don't and some that do who would like to be free to pollute for a little longer.


Like the ETS. Fortunately businesses have the luxury of passing those costs on to their end users. After all, they're just responding to a demand for goods and services, so they're polluting on our behalf :blink:... so i'd say that the 93% of hyper intelligent of CEO's fears of extra taxation and "sanctions" isn't a fear at all, more a minor concern at having to raise prices. The survey answers are nothing more than the usual placation imho, bullshit spin for, yes we care, keep buying our stuff because we're thinking about the environment and have been for some time now. After all, this has been an identified problem for decades, not just a couple of years... and how many of these concerned CEO's have implemented wind generation or solar power to help run their businesses? Or are they just leaving that up to the power generators :facepalm:

:rofl:@legislation... coz legislation really works :shit:. The US didn't sign the the Kyoto Agreement, what makes people think that any form of legislation is going to work against heavy polluters? They'll just move their "offices" to India and China, like so many have already and "talk" about the problem.

Placation, analysis paralysis, call it what you like... those 93% of surveyed CEO's are out to make money at any cost that isn't financial. Ditch using money and we may well be in with a shout at cleaning up our environment. It'd go a long way towards slowing the population growth too. It'd have a massive affect on lowering crime rates. Research could make huge strides forwards instead of budget constrained baby steps, and the social benefits of all of those things are something entirely mind watering.

But as Woodman points out, we'd probably need a humane Mugabi or Gadaffi to make that happen... or at least a country full of people that see cooperation as the best way of running a country, and not money.

[Woodman]

You ever wondered why you have to wear so much sunscreen in NZ?

New Zealand....The only country on the planet that I get sunburned.

[Scuba_Steve]

Run out of arguments huh? :yes:

nope, but surely you know what they say about arguing with an idiot :shutup::innocent:

I just wish the wankers would stop this religion tax & sort REAL problems like pollution. Manawatus river most polluted in southern hemisphere (I think) definitely most polluted in NZ how bout sort shit like that?... Ohhh wait there's no $$$ to be made by actually saving the planet

[Winston001]

I just wish the wankers would stop this religion tax & sort REAL problems like pollution. Manawatus river most polluted in southern hemisphere (I think) definitely most polluted in NZ how bout sort shit like that?... Ohhh wait there's no $$$ to be made by actually saving the planet

I know you are trolling and don't really believe this. As you know there is bucketloads of money to be made by bureaucrats and contractors cleaning rivers and sewage. And everybody knows pollution is the real problem with carbon taxes forcing people to look for non-polluting methods of farming and town sewage.

[oneofsix]

I know you are trolling and don't really believe this. As you know there is bucketloads of money to be made by bureaucrats and contractors cleaning rivers and sewage. And everybody knows pollution is the real problem with carbon taxes forcing people to look for non-polluting methods of farming and town sewage.

:rofl: carbon tax and climate change have lost there relationship to pollution in general. They don't give a rats arse about pollution. Look at your mercury 'long' life light bulbs for example. They pollute big time, where as the old incandescent one don't. Do you know how you are meant to dispose of your 'long life lightbulb when it die prematurely due to a power spike? If we could have carbon free, non-polluting electricity in this country.
Carbon tax is just a get rich scheme that means you and I pay more for the corporation to juggle funny money. It doesn't stop pollution, might shift it but as one countries pollution is shared by all thats not going to do any good for pollution.

[oneofsix]

Are the climate 'scentists' given up?

Society needs to take over from science when we're talking about global risk management.

"We can't wait till the scientists understand everything."
Sounds like surrender to me. Perhaps for this subject they could change everything for anything :rofl:

Doesn't this sound like the snakeoil salesman

"I'm not saying it's catastrophe looming. I'm saying it's uncertainty."
Panic NOW! We don't know why but please PANIC and do stupid things. :facepalm: Society must be killed to save society.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/4834615/Scientists-give-chilling-warnings-on-climate

Oh love the headline to, of course they do its what the frigging conference is about and their excuse to spend the money on it.

[mashman]

Are the climate 'scentists' given up?



Society needs to take over from science when we're talking about global risk management.

"We can't wait till the scientists understand everything."




They're not giving up and haven't.

They admit that their understanding of what is going on is incomplete and that their theories can't explain everything.

They can see that the climate is changing and irrespective of wether humans are responsible partially/wholly/or not at all for that climate change, then better safe than sorry is the go.

It sounds as though the climategate scientists are telling us that they can't stop the Govt/Polluters/ETScam through their normal channels, their climate change evidence isn't enough (or maybe it is and there's nothing that can be done about it, so why do anything :shifty:). It almost sounds like the scientists are urging Society to revolt :shit:.

Personally i'm with the scientists. They're witnessing a natural phenomena and it's one that we really aren't prepared for. What's causing the phenomena really should be put on the back burner.

[Swoop]

next week it will be fridge magnets....

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!:crybaby:

Not fridge magnets! Anything but fridge magnets!
What will keep the kids "artwork" on display in a prominent public position?:facepalm:


Won't anyone think of the children!?

[Pwalo]

Are the climate 'scentists' given up?

Sounds like surrender to me. Perhaps for this subject they could change everything for anything :rofl:

Doesn't this sound like the snakeoil salesman

Panic NOW! We don't know why but please PANIC and do stupid things. :facepalm: Society must be killed to save society.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/4834615/Scientists-give-chilling-warnings-on-climate

Oh love the headline to, of course they do its what the frigging conference is about and their excuse to spend the money on it.

Yes that was probably the most whiny,pathetic press release I've had the pleasure of reading for some time. Please be REALLY scared, and don't ask us too may questions.

Still at least even the Dim Post buried it in the middle pages.

[Spearfish]

at least 10 characters.

[puddytat]

Being that I am a halfwit....:yes:
Seems somewhat commonsensicle to have a foot in both camps to me.
A bit like the Yin/Yang concept, though based on a Religous theory it works like the scientifically proven oposites attract,for every action is a reaction kinda thing,cause & effect like.:blink:
Pass the cucumber...

'Tis somewhat of a shame that something as important as this subject ends up another "Us & Them" thing
As for Scientists & Theologists, well they're going to say pretty much whatever the hands that paying them tells them to.....
Look around folk...its turning to custard & we will all have to pay for "it" one way or another....:facepalm:

[mashman]

I found this (http://www.skepticalscience.com/Why-does-CO2-lag-temperature.html) an interesting read... the comments are definately worth a read and they're fookin long but relatively easy to follow. It does sort of confirm that we've gone about as far as we can and that there are several potential theories for just about every element of climate change trigger/causation... Either way there seems to be enough doubt that I'm not surprised noone wants to do anything about it. Too many people clinging on to the idea that it'll not happen in our lifetime? Or does someone know something we don't?

[Jantar]

I found this (http://www.skepticalscience.com/Why-does-CO2-lag-temperature.html) an interesting read... the comments are definately worth a read and they're fookin long but relatively easy to follow. It does sort of confirm that we've gone about as far as we can and that there are several potential theories for just about every element of climate change trigger/causation... Either way there seems to be enough doubt that I'm not surprised noone wants to do anything about it. Too many people clinging on to the idea that it'll not happen in our lifetime? Or does someone know something we don't?

I note this statement from that link
The process takes around 800 to 1000 years, so CO2 levels are observed to rise around 1000 years after the initial warming (Monnin 2001, Mudelsee 2001).

Interesting that 800 - 1000 years ago was the medievil Warming Period. Now we are seeing CO2 rising, so where's the mystery?

[mashman]

I note this statement from that link

Interesting that 800 - 1000 years ago was the medievil Warming Period. Now we are seeing CO2 rising, so where's the mystery?

Dunno. I assume that if they understand how this cycle works, or why, then they'd be able to measure "our" effect on climate change. Like you say, if it's a known cycle, where's the mystery.

[Edbear]

Dunno. I assume that if they understand how this cycle works, or why, then they'd be able to measure "our" effect on climate change. Like you say, if it's a known cycle, where's the mystery.

I don't think anyone now doubts that climate change is occurring despite ongoing arguments about global warming. Whatever the actual case, what is beyond question is that Man is steadily and fairly quickly destroying the environment faster than it can recover. Scientists studying the oceans and the Earth are telling us we have between 30 -50 years until we're killed off the oceans and they are effectively dead. They are telling us that the the groundwaters, aquifers, are sinking and becoming so polluted that there will be wars fought over water, not oil, as fresh water becomes in critical supply.

This is the real crisis no-one is keen to talk about...

[mashman]

I don't think anyone now doubts that climate change is occurring despite ongoing arguments about global warming. Whatever the actual case, what is beyond question is that Man is steadily and fairly quickly destroying the environment faster than it can recover. Scientists studying the oceans and the Earth are telling us we have between 30 -50 years until we're killed off the oceans and they are effectively dead. They are telling us that the the groundwaters, aquifers, are sinking and becoming so polluted that there will be wars fought over water, not oil, as fresh water becomes in critical supply.

This is the real crisis no-one is keen to talk about...

They've been saying 30 - 50 years since I was a kid :yes: and still haven't done anything about it. If the poles melt then the sea dies anyway (according to the scientists) and by the sounds of things that's a natural occurrence. All that melt water going to waste :facepalm:. Gawd i wish something catastrophic would happen.

[Jantar]

.... Whatever the actual case, what is beyond question is that Man is steadily and fairly quickly destroying the environment faster than it can recover. ...

This is the real crisis no-one is keen to talk about...

Yes, pollution is a real issue that we should be dealing with, but this has absolutely nothing to do with climate change. Its a totally different subject. One is man made and the other is Mann made.

[Edbear]

This is the sort of thing that should be being shouted from the rooftops!

http://www.fisherycrisis.com/

http://www.uga.edu/gm/1202/FeatDeep.html

[shrub]

This is the sort of thing that should be being shouted from the rooftops!

http://www.fisherycrisis.com/

http://www.uga.edu/gm/1202/FeatDeep.html

It's the tip of the iceberg (no pun intended). Climate change is probably the biggest problem we have from the way we have exhausted our resources, but it's not the only one and probably won't be the first to bite us in the arse.

[puddytat]

The only thing they seem keen on is the Emissions Trading Scheme.....FFS its as big a scam as the one thats caused the recession & as a Forest owner its the reason why I will never by into a Futures trading scam.
I will plant more trees only 'cause I luvs ya all:yes:

I now quote "Straight Furrow" April 5th...(cause its faster than link it on dial up)
"As an example,if a 100ha pre 1990 pine forest in the BOP region burns down at age 35 & deforestation occurs due to lackof new growth the landowner will have to pay MAF 87,000 carbon units. If the carbon price was $25 per unit this would cost the landowner $2,190,000.
Given that the landoner is unlikely to be able to pay; it is yet to be seen whether the Govt in that case would bankrupt the landowner.
The ETS ups the stakes for events such as fire, disease, or wind blow because previously the landowner only risked losing the forest; now the landowner risks losing all other assets held in the same entity,which normally includes the rest of the farm & family home among other things":blink::shit:

He (Charles Rau) goes onto say that landowners are advised to seek professional assistance.....so pay out even more for lawyers, accountants etc.
What a freakin' nightmare.
If our survival depends on the cost,well we already know what the outcome'll be.:facepalm:

[Winston001]

I agree Puddytat, that's ludicrous. I can't find the Straight Furrow article online but have found accountant Charles Raus article in the Gisborne Herald http://www.gisborneherald.co.nz/article/?id=21178

Incidentally its nice to see Straight Furrow mentioned. It was standard reading at home when I were a lad and I still browse it occasionally.

[Jantar]

How about we all stop using any fossil fuel or anything else that emits CO2 and reduce the earth's temperature to 0.0015 C cooler than it would otherwise have been by 2050.

That means no transport of any sort other than walk or unshod horse. No electricity, and no cooking other than on wood fires. No new houses or any other sort of building either.

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/04/07/climate-models-go-cold/

[puddytat]

Gets my vote....certainly would cut down on all kinds of compliance costs for a start:yes:
You forgot bicycles.:woohoo:

[Edbear]

Gets my vote....certainly would cut down on all kinds of compliance costs for a start:yes:
You forgot bicycles.:woohoo:

Me and the Missus are going to buy a couple of Bicycles as soon as my Physiotherapist okays it for me. But new homes? I reckon the log homes I've seen would be very environmentally sound and sustainable as they can be built of renewable trees, can be built without nails, etc.

[Jantar]

Gets my vote....certainly would cut down on all kinds of compliance costs for a start:yes:
You forgot bicycles.:woohoo:
Sorry, but making the steel for the bicycle frames releases CO2, as does the manufacture of the tyes.

[Jantar]

Me and the Missus are going to buy a couple of Bicycles as soon as my Physiotherapist okays it for me. But new homes? I reckon the log homes I've seen would be very environmentally sound and sustainable as they can be built of renewable trees, can be built without nails, etc.
But the building regs require concrete foundations, and insulated walls and ceilings, all of which release CO2 in the manufacture.

[Edbear]

Sorry, but making the steel for the bicycle frames releases CO2, as does the manufacture of the tyes.

But, but, horses are dangerous, people fall off them and hurt themselves! :bye:

[oneofsix]

But, but, horses are dangerous, people fall off them and hurt themselves! :bye:

and they produce methane ... or is that mythane?

[ellipsis]

...im very sorry...everyone...I think that this is all my doing...I use a logburner that is not really up to the standard they want and I cooked most of our food on a 44 gallon drum bbq for years...really, really sorry for all the shit Ive caused...

[mashman]

Breathing releases CO2 :shit:

[Edbear]

Breathing releases CO2 :shit:

So there ya go! Just stop everybody breathing and the world will be safe... :yes:

If everyone stops breathing and farting there's no problem! Why didn't anyone think of this years ago??? :blink:

[mashman]

So there ya go! Just stop everybody breathing and the world will be safe... :yes:

If everyone stops breathing and farting there's no problem! Why didn't anyone think of this years ago??? :blink:

I'm sure that there are idiots in high places contemplating such a "solution" :yes:

:rofl:, tis probably hard to pass wind with your head up your ass. (edit) would probably solve the breathing problem too

[Edbear]

...im very sorry...everyone...I think that this is all my doing...I use a logburner that is not really up to the standard they want and I cooked most of our food on a 44 gallon drum bbq for years...really, really sorry for all the shit Ive caused...

I found this interesting, maybe Mankind has more of an effect than we think?

http://www.scienceprogress.org/2008/06/our-dying-oceans/

"Ice core record measurements of carbon dioxide taken mid-century showed that atmospheric concentrations had remained about constant for several thousand years until the rapid onset of industrialization during the 1800s, after which they began their meteoric rise."

“So what?” you may ask. Why should I care about this when other climate-induced phenomena like heat waves and droughts seem much more urgent? Diminishing the ocean’s capacity to absorb CO2 is no small problem in itself, because without the ocean serving as a carbon sink, more carbon dioxide will have no where to go but into the atmosphere. But aside from that, what worries scientists most about ocean acidification is that it will inhibit certain organisms’ ability to produce calcium carbonate shells—to the extent that they would have great difficulty growing. And not just any organisms: those, like phytoplankton, which support entire food webs by acting as the ocean’s primary producers (like plants in terrestrial ecosystems). Without them—or with their numbers greatly reduced—many populations and ecosystems could simply collapse."

[Pwalo]

I found this interesting, maybe Mankind has more of an effect than we think?

http://www.scienceprogress.org/2008/06/our-dying-oceans/

"Ice core record measurements of carbon dioxide taken mid-century showed that atmospheric concentrations had remained about constant for several thousand years until the rapid onset of industrialization during the 1800s, after which they began their meteoric rise."

“So what?” you may ask. Why should I care about this when other climate-induced phenomena like heat waves and droughts seem much more urgent? Diminishing the ocean’s capacity to absorb CO2 is no small problem in itself, because without the ocean serving as a carbon sink, more carbon dioxide will have no where to go but into the atmosphere. But aside from that, what worries scientists most about ocean acidification is that it will inhibit certain organisms’ ability to produce calcium carbonate shells—to the extent that they would have great difficulty growing. And not just any organisms: those, like phytoplankton, which support entire food webs by acting as the ocean’s primary producers (like plants in terrestrial ecosystems). Without them—or with their numbers greatly reduced—many populations and ecosystems could simply collapse."

So obviously the earlier occurences of global warming don't back up the idea that global warming is caused by CO2, or by man. Glad that's sorted then.

[Edbear]

So obviously the earlier occurences of global warming don't back up the idea that global warming is caused by CO2, or by man. Glad that's sorted then.

I think the point is more that Man's contribution is greater than we'd like to think. I found this link while researching the oceans. It is no secret that Man is destroying the environment faster than it can recover and the oceans in particular are dying faster than anyone cares to admit, mainly because of pollution.

Global warming may be a periodic event in itself, but now it's seriously affecting us as a species and combined with pollution threatens our very survival.

[Woodman]

Global warming may be a periodic event in itself, but now it's seriously affecting us as a species and combined with pollution threatens our very survival.

Then we are not meant to be here.
Any species that shits in their own nest is obviously too stupid to deserve to survive.

[Metastable]

Too long to read the whole thread, but I will say this much:

If one doesn't believe in Global warming is attributed to greenhouse gases etc.... fine.

However, would you agree that we need to control global pollution and population increase, because (and I do think one would agree) we can't keep it going at the rate it is now!!!

I took a plane ride a couple of years ago from Toronto to Charlotte, NC. It was a clear day.....well sort of .... I saw SMOG THE ENTIRE TRIP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Now that can't be good for humans or the planet regardless of whether it is causing global warming.

One thing the wife and I really enjoyed about NZ was how your colours were so BRIGHT... the sky was blue and the trees in the distance were vibrant green and everything looked clear! In many parts of the world, things just look hazy.

Global warming or no.... that's just not right!

[oneofsix]

Too long to read the whole thread, but I will say this much:

If one doesn't believe in Global warming is attributed to greenhouse gases etc.... fine.

However, would you agree that we need to control global pollution and population increase, because (and I do think one would agree) we can't keep it going at the rate it is now!!!

I took a plane ride a couple of years ago from Toronto to Charlotte, NC. It was a clear day.....well sort of .... I saw SMOG THE ENTIRE TRIP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Now that can't be good for humans or the planet regardless of whether it is causing global warming.

One thing the wife and I really enjoyed about NZ was how your colours were so BRIGHT... the sky was blue and the trees in the distance were vibrant green and everything looked clear! In many parts of the world, things just look hazy.

Global warming or no.... that's just not right!

I for one don't believe all the hype around global warming. I'm still skeptical, sitting on the fence if you prefer, as there has been too much bullshit.
I do agree the pollution must be reduced and this is one of my issues with global warming. By focusing on carbons and greenhouse gases which somehow all come back to carbons, the believers are willing to increase other pollutants, like mercury and lead. So instead of contributing possibly 1% to the planets carbon emissions we are meant to accept directly poisoning the planet with non-greenhouse pollutants. :doh:

[Edbear]

Then we are not meant to be here.
Any species that shits in their own nest is obviously too stupid to deserve to survive.

Well put! Unfortunately, the human species as a species, is that stupid which defys the fact that most individuals recognise that that is what we are doing and want it to stop.


Too long to read the whole thread, but I will say this much:

If one doesn't believe in Global warming is attributed to greenhouse gases etc.... fine.

However, would you agree that we need to control global pollution and population increase, because (and I do think one would agree) we can't keep it going at the rate it is now!!!

I took a plane ride a couple of years ago from Toronto to Charlotte, NC. It was a clear day.....well sort of .... I saw SMOG THE ENTIRE TRIP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Now that can't be good for humans or the planet regardless of whether it is causing global warming.

One thing the wife and I really enjoyed about NZ was how your colours were so BRIGHT... the sky was blue and the trees in the distance were vibrant green and everything looked clear! In many parts of the world, things just look hazy.

Global warming or no.... that's just not right!

Again, you'll see in most industrialised cities a pollution level way higher than it should be with some cities classified as toxic! Even the Astronaughts are mentioning how dirty the Earth is looking from space now by comparison to the first space flights when it was described as breathtakingly beautiful and pristine.

Considering that the entire world's population could fit in the state of Texas with room to swing a cat, it is more the population/agriculture distribution on the planet that is the real issue. Coupled with the rampant greed of people who want it all and want it now and hang the consequences as long as I'm all right, Jack.


I for one don't believe all the hype around global warming. I'm still skeptical, sitting on the fence if you prefer, as there has been too much bullshit.
I do agree the pollution must be reduced and this is one of my issues with global warming. By focusing on carbons and greenhouse gases which somehow all come back to carbons, the believers are willing to increase other pollutants, like mercury and lead. So instead of contributing possibly 1% to the planets carbon emissions we are meant to accept directly poisoning the planet with non-greenhouse pollutants. :doh:

Much is beyond question, I've been doing a lot of research on it. If you stick to studies of scientists without the spin polliticians and vested interests are putting on them the situation is dire for the human race and most air-breathing life. While global warming on its own may not be enough to threaten our survival as a species, it's the combination of warming with rampant pollution that is too much for the planet to cope with.

The atmosphere could cope with vehicle pollution, but not combined with airplanes and industry. Add in a few volacanoes which would on their own be no issue and again, it's the overloading that causes the damage.

[shrub]

Considering that the entire world's population could fit in the state of Texas with room to swing a cat, it is more the population/agriculture distribution on the planet that is the real issue. Coupled with the rampant greed of people who want it all and want it now and hang the consequences as long as I'm all right, Jack.

There was a study done about 5 years ago and the current population of the planet could all enjoy a lifestyle comparable to an average Western European of the early 1990s and I read another that had it as a late 80s lifestyle - either are pretty good.



Much is beyond question, I've been doing a lot of research on it. If you stick to studies of scientists without the spin polliticians and vested interests are putting on them the situation is dire for the human race and most air-breathing life. While global warming on its own may not be enough to threaten our survival as a species, it's the combination of warming with rampant pollution that is too much for the planet to cope with.

Well said. When you talk to scientists involved in anything to do with the environment they are almost without exception quietly shitting themselves because they look at the cold hard data before it gets spun, diluted or challenged with spurious arguments. They don't have an agenda beyond finding out what is going on and if they are worried then maybe we need to be too.

As for who is to blame, I like Ockham's razor. My back lawn has dog shit on it - now that could be caused by my neighbour's dog getting through the fence, it could be birdshit that just looks like dogshit or it could be me not using the chemical toilet. Or it could be caused by my dog.

[avgas]

Then we are not meant to be here.
Any species that shits in their own nest is obviously too stupid to deserve to survive.
Actually originally we didn't. It was only through "convenience" we started to do so.

Also we can't run on the principal of consumption - as many creatures on earth consume more than us (on a scale).

Problems with humans is intelligence. We found interesting ways to fuck up the world. Making us the most damaging due to our creativity.
We are the opening of pandora's box so to speak.

[shrub]

Also we can't run on the principal of consumption - as many creatures on earth consume more than us (on a scale).

Actually that's not true. No other species consumes fossil fuels, mined minerals etc, no other species consumes more food than they need for survival and no other species produces nearly as much waste as we do in total or on a scale.

[avgas]

No other species consumes fossil fuels, mined minerals etc
Last time I checked cave men did not require these.....reread my post

[shrub]

Last time I checked cave men did not require these.....reread my post

And what relevance does that have? We are not 'cave men' and they don't exist any more, so what they did or didn't do bears no relevance to the current unsustainable levels of human consumption.

[avgas]

And what relevance does that have? We are not 'cave men' and they don't exist any more, so what they did or didn't do bears no relevance to the current unsustainable levels of human consumption.
Why do we consume?

Do we all consume the same?

Its very easy to say "Humans are evil because they consume", but its very hard to say "I consume too much due to what decisions I make and how I think".

Humans are not the problem here - there are still humans on earth whom consume and waste very little. The problem therefore is not the fact we are human, or human nature. But something else. no?

[shrub]

Why do we consume.... The problem therefore is not the fact we are human, or human nature. But something else. no?

I agree entirely, many individuals and businesses choose not to consume unsustainably and many more are unable to do so.

If you're looking for a cause, the problem is ultimately following the western/capitalist/libertarian business model, especially as defined by people like Milton Friedman - reading his work with a 21st century lens is interesting to say the least. From Milton's original ideas we have developed a business environment where growth and profit have become the sole reasons for businesses to exist, and the way to achieve that has been to maximise consumption and minimise production costs.

Common business sense you say, but the level of consumption is unsustainable because not only are we running out of resources, but we're running out of people able to afford to buy new and shiny shit. Therefore manufacturing costs need to come down, so we can't afford to manufacture anything in the west any more because paying the kind of wages needed to buy flash TVs means they would cost about a brazillian dollars each. And nobody could afford them, let alone several of them which is what we all need - ask any advertising agency.

As well as labour costs, there are costs of energy to manufacture said lovely stuff, and the cheapest energy going is from fossil fuels, especially coal. Only problem is that results in greenhouse gas emissions, so the best solution is to make sure that the countries where our stuff is made don't have to take responsibility for said GHGs. Then it's proven really successful to dull and confuse the populace with a brilliant PR campaign that casts doubt on the very existence of climate change by telling them scientists are confused (they're not) and are solely motivated by money (again, they're not) and that it's all a scam by evil governments to get you and I to pay more tax which will mean we can't afford that lovely new LED Tv to replace the horrible old LCD we bought last year.

And we've been told that we are solely responsible for ourselves and no other. We must not consider the needs of others if that gets in the way of us getting what we want NOW (or have been told we want), and that includes the needs of people living tomorrow. It's a concept known as rational egoism and has worked spectacularly well. So far.

[avgas]

And we've been told that we are solely responsible for ourselves and no other. We must not consider the needs of others if that gets in the way of us getting what we want NOW (or have been told we want), and that includes the needs of people living tomorrow. It's a concept known as rational egoism and has worked spectacularly well. So far.
heh yep - which is my point. To paint all with the "damn dirty human" brush is a bit, errr simple.
We need to change ideas. Unfortunately if you follow any of the change theories out there - a change this big requires a big freezing then big changes, then a big unfreezing.

In the real world, I can't think of anything affecting human consumption/waste on that sort of scale. That isn't Armageddon.
I mean how would you change the ideas of billions of people overnight that : technology, eat more than you grow, power systems etc are bad ideas.
We would have to lose it all first. Have it taken from us.
We won't give it up willingly - otherwise we would have done it already.

[mashman]

Unfortunately, the human species as a species, is that stupid which defys the fact that most individuals recognise that that is what we are doing and want it to stop.

Yeeeah, Nah, that's only the parasites and not the symbionts. There's only one thing to do with parasites.........

[mashman]

It's already starting to happen - or more to the point the world's business leaders are all taking climate change very, very seriously because they're smart enough to recognise that if they don't they won't be business leaders for too much longer. In a recent opinion survey of the world's leading CEOs, 93% said climate change was the biggest challenge to the long term viability of their businesses and needed immediate attention. Unlike people on internet message boards these guys are smart enough not to listen to spin doctors and to listen to the people who have done the research.


According to this, NZ Business has fallen way behind (http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-stories/9580168/saving-the-planet-not-important-to-nz-businesses-survey/) (or is "leading" the charge... depending on your view point :shifty:) and doesn't really rate its affect on the planet as much of an area for concern (in light of not having the other questions that is)

:rofl:

and it would seem that we're going to bail some areas out (http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-stories/9579741/nick-smith-announces-two-environment-grants/) :blink:... :rofl:@restoration :facepalm:

[Edbear]

Some good points made here. It's not all human's spoiling it, many native populations in so-called third-world countries are living well with nature and living sustainably. The problem is mainly a "Western" issue with people consuming more than they need without regard for waste and pollution and sustainability. The most urgent problem is pollution, as science highlights - we're polluting the Earth far faster than it can cope with. We're destroying not only the environment by pollution, but we are destroying the Earth's resources that cope with pollution as well.

[NighthawkNZ]

Some good points made here. It's not all human's spoiling it, many native populations in so-called third-world countries are living well with nature and living sustainably.


Aliems did it...

[mashman]

Some good points made here. It's not all human's spoiling it, many native populations in so-called third-world countries are living well with nature and living sustainably. The problem is mainly a "Western" issue with people consuming more than they need without regard for waste and pollution and sustainability. The most urgent problem is pollution, as science highlights - we're polluting the Earth far faster than it can cope with. We're destroying not only the environment by pollution, but we are destroying the Earth's resources that cope with pollution as well.

The big issue is how we're living, not what the side effects are (pollution, consumption etc...). Solve the how bit and the rest would take care of itself... I have a suggestion that would help to bring that about :shifty::innocent:

[Edbear]

Local climates are certainly changing with records being broken around the world.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/environment/news/article.cfm?c_id=39&objectid=10730494

[FJRider]

Local climates are certainly changing with records being broken around the world.

We've just had the warmest May since records began ...

[puddytat]

"Its the end of the world as we know it......& I feel fine":yes:
Kind of exciting in a weird kind of way.:sick: Atleast i wont need to worry about my pension & kiwisaver ever happening.....in another 21 years I think events will have overtaken us & we'll be happy with a bowl of gruel:yes:

[Edbear]

Foreword by WWF
Emissions of global warming gases continue to rise as the world burns ever more coal, oil and gas for energy. The risk of destabilising the Earth's climate system is growing every day. Few things can be more pressing for the protection of ecosystems and the well-being of society than avoiding the catastrophic effects of global warming. Time is not on our side.

Glaciers are melting worldwide. In the last century, glaciers on Mount Kenya have lost 92 percent of their mass and glaciers on Mount Kilimanjaro 73 percent. The number of glaciers in Spain has decreased from 27 to 13 since 1980. Europe's Alpine glaciers have lost about 50 percent of their volume during the last century. The glaciers of New Zealand have decreased in volume by 26 percent since 1980. In Russia, the Caucasus has lost about 50 percent of its glacial ice over the last 100 years.

This taken from a BBC document..www.panda.org/downloads/climate_change/xweather.pdf

[puddytat]

Totally agree Ed....

[FJRider]

Note to ALL .... check Life Insurance maturity date ... WILL YOU MAKE IT ... ??? :facepalm:

[Scuba_Steve]

Foreword by WWF
Emissions of global warming gases continue to rise as the world burns ever more coal, oil and gas for energy. The risk of destabilising the Earth's climate system is growing every day. Few things can be more pressing for the protection of ecosystems and the well-being of society than avoiding the catastrophic effects of global warming. Time is not on our side.

Glaciers are melting worldwide. In the last century, glaciers on Mount Kenya have lost 92 percent of their mass and glaciers on Mount Kilimanjaro 73 percent. The number of glaciers in Spain has decreased from 27 to 13 since 1980. Europe's Alpine glaciers have lost about 50 percent of their volume during the last century. The glaciers of New Zealand have decreased in volume by 26 percent since 1980. In Russia, the Caucasus has lost about 50 percent of its glacial ice over the last 100 years.

This taken from a BBC document..www.panda.org/downloads/climate_change/xweather.pdf

meh :whocares: the world ends in 2012

[Edbear]

meh :whocares: the world ends in 2012

Yeah, but only for the Mayan's... Where are they these days anyway?

[puddytat]

Yeah, but only for the Mayan's... Where are they these days anyway?

Working illegally in the U.S?

[NighthawkNZ]

meh :whocares: the world ends in 2012



http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2011/05/23/18680355.php
The Maya have taken center stage because many fear the supposed end date of their calendar marks the end of the world. Most of this information comes from non-Mayans and it is not accurate. Because of this the National Council of Elders Mayas, Xinca and Garifuna recently addressed the world. Their message is simple: “Our actions have created a world out of balance that must be rebalanced immediately in order for us to avoid more suffering…for humans and for all life.”
In a recent address to the world (http://www.ShiftoftheAges.com/maya-message-2012), through Positive Purpose Productions (P-Qubd LLC) the National Council of Elders Mayas, Xinca and Garifuna offers prophetic insights – and grave warnings – regarding the many natural and manmade disasters occurring now. According to the Mayan calendar, they say we are entering times of great pain if humanity doesn't immediately change its destructive behaviour and restore balance to the planet.
The elders spoke up to warn humanity because there is much misinformation, being spread mostly by self-proclaimed elders, gurus and pseudo scientists. Many of them do this for their own personal gain, to exploit the name of the Maya or to spread fear that the world is going to end in 2012.
Many think that the Maya are an extinct civilization even though there are over 10 million living Maya, mostly in Central America and southern Mexico. They are led by a council of elders who meet and confer regularly on local and global affairs.
Among other things, the Maya are known for their advanced calendar system, astronomical science and their surprisingly accurate prophecies. Remarkably, they have preserved much of their ancestors’ wisdom through an oral tradition, in spite of the Spanish conquest and centuries of foreign domination and interference.
Now, the National Council of Mayan Elders in Guatemala has a message for the world. Through their leader, Wakatel Utiw, “Wandering Wolf,” also known as Don Alejandro Cirilo Perez Oxlaj, they offer:
“2012 is not the end of the world, nor did we ever predict that it would end: not now, not at the end of our Long Count calendar, not on December 21, 2012. Do not trust self-proclaimed elders, gurus and pseudo scientists who for their own personal gain create fear in the name of the Maya.”
Far from being a date on a calendar when something will automatically happen, the elders are telling us that it is up to us how we traverse these challenging times. “The new Sun will come, but if we don’t change our destructive and disharmonious ways, many may not see it,” they warn. “We are not powerless over something happening to us; we are happening to the Earth and to each other,” Wandering Wolf offers in his empowering teachings. Our actions have created a world out of balance that must be rebalanced in order for us to avoid more suffering…to humans and to all life.
The Mayan Elders believe that their culture is poorly understood by non-Mayans whose interpretations are therefore very misleading. We have to use critical thinking when interpreting the sensationalist messages which have flooded the media and the Internet. Indeed, every non-Mayan researcher and writer owes their work to the Maya; however, the Maya rarely speak about themselves, until now. You can read Wandering Wolf’s address to the world in the attachment and here: http://www.ShiftoftheAges.com/maya-message-2012.
Wandering Wolf also partnered with a California company, Positive Purpose Productions (P-Qubd LLC) to create a feature-length documentary called Shift of the Ages, which is to be released in early 2012. Shift of the Ages will be their first official discourse to the world. Compelling and timely, this story is told through their elected leader, Wandering Wolf. The mission of the film is to deliver the Mayan message of peace and unity to a global audience, incite a call to action, and provide an empowering vision of our future if we choose to take responsibility for re-balancing our world and our relationship to it. You can read more about Shift of the Ages and how to become an Ambassador here: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/sota/shift-of-the-ages-a-true-story
On behalf of the Maya, we humbly thank you for your support in sharing the truth.
http://www.shiftoftheages.com

Even the Mayan don't believe that...

[Edbear]

Even the Mayan don't believe that...

Funny how so many take things to extremes and ignore the facts, eh? This is typical of the world we live in. Never let the facts get in the way of a good story/ conspiracy theory/Armageddon scenario...

[Jantar]

We've just had the warmest May since records began ...
And Australia has just had its coldest. That is weather caused by the LaNina pattern. Similarly USA has had very cold conditions, but Canada had warm.

Also don't forget that that "warmest May on record' is on the adjusted data, not on the raw data.

[FJRider]

meh :whocares: the world ends in 2012

Wasn't it May, 2011 .... oh wait ...:facepalm:

[Jantar]

Globally May was little different to April http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_May_2011.gif

[puddytat]

"And when people say we cannot do it & that it cant be done....I would like to say to the naysayers.....youre right, youre too fucking ignorant & until commonsense & the love of our planet outweighs the comfort consumerism of our culture,we are in a word ...Fucked."
(Obamas original speech notes before the spin doctors edited it):yes:

[Edbear]

I watched that film, "11th Hour" narrated by Leonardo De Caprio and was quite impressed. There is no argument the Industrial Revolution began a sharp rise in pollution, both atmospheric and environmental that has rapidly accelerated climate change. The graphs are quite alarming.

Certainly, if we are to stand any chance at all of saving ourselves from extinction, measures need to be global, draconian and immediate. Can anyone see that happening?

The dying oceans are our biggest threat at present.

http://www.uga.edu/gm/1202/FeatDeep.html

[shrub]

"And when people say we cannot do it & that it cant be done....I would like to say to the naysayers.....youre right, youre too fucking ignorant & until commonsense & the love of our planet outweighs the comfort consumerism of our culture,we are in a word ...Fucked."
(Obamas original speech notes before the spin doctors edited it):yes:

It's the 9th of June and I think we have had a couple of mild frosts. I still ride around town in kevlar jeans and a fully vented jacket with unlined gloves and right now I am wearing a T shirt and jeans. I'm enjoying the warmth, but we live in an environment that needs it to be cold this time of year for key things to happen. I have plants that need major frosts to die back so they can regrow in Spring, but they're just growing more and more and others that only start the fruiting process after a cold snap. I don't care about polar bears or penguins all that much, but i do care about my garden because I eat stuff from my garden and I like to eat.

In the longer term and beyond my belly climate change will hit many of our big export earners hard and it will hit our markets even harder which means our income as a country will drop. We need to take it seriously because it's real and we're the main cause, but the big polluters have done a sterling job of convincing ordinary people that it's all a scam to make them (the ordinary people) pay more taxes, so instead of getting consensus and action we have endless and pointless debate where the same fallacious arguments get pulled out over and over and over.

As a result the major polluters (which ain't you and I) get off scot free. They all know climate change is real and that they cause most of it, but they don't care because they have their money in trusts and no matter what happens they will be largely insulated. Unlike you and I who will pay big time.

It really pisses me off because if we got off our arses now we could still protect our lifestyles. We won't stop climate change, it's too late for that, but we can reduce it in the future and more importantly develop the technologies and systems to mitigate its impacts on our lives. But we won't because enough people have been convinced to ignore the scientists and real experts and listen to the spin doctors to turn it into an endless debate.

[Jantar]

....We won't stop climate change, it's too late for that, but we can reduce it in the future and more importantly develop the technologies and systems to mitigate its impacts on our lives. ....

Yes, If we stop emitting any CO2 right now. That is no fuel use of any sort, no coal, no oil, no petrol etc. If we stop all electricity production that uses any fossil fuel, and stop building any new power stations at all. If we stop all building that uses concrete or steel. If we do all that we will lower the modelled temperature rise by 0.0002 degrees C. Yes a whole 2 ten thousandths of a degree. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/05/agw-proponents-lose-yet-another-debate-down-under/#more-41091

But that is modelled temperature rise, not measured. We can't measure temperature to that degree of accuracy.

[oneofsix]

Yes, If we stop emitting any CO2 right now. That is no fuel use of any sort, no coal, no oil, no petrol etc. If we stop all electricity production that uses any fossil fuel, and stop building any new power stations at all. If we stop all building that uses concrete or steel. If we do all that we will lower the modelled temperature rise by 0.0002 degrees C. Yes a whole 2 ten thousandths of a degree. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/05/agw-proponents-lose-yet-another-debate-down-under/#more-41091

But that is modelled temperature rise, not measured. We can't measure temperature to that degree of accuracy.

and we are still not at the temperatures where they had vineyards in Britain and that was only back in Roman Britain times.

[shrub]

Yes, If we stop emitting any CO2 right now. That is no fuel use of any sort, no coal, no oil, no petrol etc. If we stop all electricity production that uses any fossil fuel, and stop building any new power stations at all. If we stop all building that uses concrete or steel. If we do all that we will lower the modelled temperature rise by 0.0002 degrees C. Yes a whole 2 ten thousandths of a degree. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/05/agw-proponents-lose-yet-another-debate-down-under/#more-41091

But that is modelled temperature rise, not measured. We can't measure temperature to that degree of accuracy.


Exactly my point. Deeply flawed and irrelevant arguments based on false science - Anthony Watts was a TV and radio weather announcer and has NO recorded qualifications in climate science or meteorology, so why listen to him over people who actually know what they're talking about? I'll tell you why, he has got you scared that the evil scientists want to take away your bike/car/truck and stop you using electricity and tax you more at the same time.

[Scuba_Steve]

Exactly my point. Deeply flawed and irrelevant arguments based on false science - Anthony Watts was a TV and radio weather announcer and has NO recorded qualifications in climate science or meteorology, so why listen to him over people who actually know what they're talking about? I'll tell you why, he has got you scared that the evil scientists want to take away your bike/car/truck and stop you using electricity and tax you more at the same time.

you use "people that know what they're talking about" & "climate science" in the same sentance :blink::weird:

[Jantar]

Exactly my point. Deeply flawed and irrelevant arguments based on false science - Anthony Watts was a TV and radio weather announcer and has NO recorded qualifications in climate science or meteorology, so why listen to him over people who actually know what they're talking about? I'll tell you why, he has got you scared that the evil scientists want to take away your bike/car/truck and stop you using electricity and tax you more at the same time.

That information came the Anthony Watts web site, but was not quoted by Anthony Watts. Maybe you should follow the link. The information came from Julia Gilliards Science advisor and was made public in a public debate. But because it was reported on WUWT suddenly it isn't true? So what is the correct figure then?

[shrub]

That information came the Anthony Watts web site, but was not quoted by Anthony Watts. Maybe you should follow the link. The information came from Julia Gilliards Science advisor and was made public in a public debate. But because it was reported on WUWT suddenly it isn't true? So what is the correct figure then?

I read the following: "The opponents of the tax were awarded a clear win, on rendered applause, by debate Chairman Mr Mark Ludlow (Australian Financial Review).

Source: summary written by an attendee known to me – Anthony"

Therefore I immediately discounted the silly article but I have just gone back to see if i can find any valid source for the claims by Anthony's friend and all I got was a link to the WED website. Forgive me if I don't take it all that seriously because I have learned that just because someone writes something on a blog it doesn't make it true and just because the majority (as measured by applause - a well known scientific method) think something doesn't make it right either.

And on that note I have far better things to do than waste my time arguing with people who are so deeply invested in their position that there is no evidence strong enough to convince them as long as somewhere out there a blog supports their position.

[puddytat]

Certainly, if we are to stand any chance at all of saving ourselves from extinction, measures need to be global, draconian and immediate. Can anyone see that happening?



Unless there's Aliens with Rayguns pointed at our heads........N0.
The thing is, when it gets so bad that no one can ignore it the "People" will jump up
& down & blame the Govt of the day.Not since 1978 & Montreal have they done much at all except release more hot air & pay lip service to KYOTO .Maybe threatening them with Crimes against Humanity would help?(possibly an avenue to explore?):yes:
Life is still good in West & nothing will be done untill its to late.:facepalm:
Life is still crap everywhere else & they dont want to go without. Nor should they. WE all will end up going without.:violin::violin::violin::violin:

[Winston001]

And on that note I have far better things to do than waste my time arguing with people who are so deeply invested in their position that there is no evidence strong enough to convince them as long as somewhere out there a blog supports their position.

I'm with you but Jantar has an opposite position. However I respect his views and he isn't silly. He's argued coherently in other threads on this topic and makes valid points about atmospheric influences on climate.


Of course he's wrong...:devil2:

[Winston001]

Unless there's Aliens with Rayguns pointed at our heads........N0.
The thing is, when it gets so bad that no one can ignore it the "People" will jump up
& down & blame the Govt of the day.Not since 1978 & Montreal have they done much at all except release more hot air & pay lip service to KYOTO .Maybe threatening them with Crimes against Humanity would help?(possibly an avenue to explore?):yes:
Life is still good in West & nothing will be done untill its to late.:facepalm:
Life is still crap everywhere else & they dont want to go without. Nor should they. WE all will end up going without.:violin::violin::violin::violin:

All joking aside I think you are right. The history of man is that we do not take radical action until the excrement hits the rotating device. Which is usually far too late.

[shrub]

I'm with you but Jantar has an opposite position. However I respect his views and he isn't silly. He's argued coherently in other threads on this topic and makes valid points about atmospheric influences on climate.


Of course he's wrong...:devil2:

I also respect him because he's an intelligent man, which is why it saddens - and even annoys me - that he uses such flimsy arguments.

[Edbear]

Interesting reads.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10731622

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/climate-change/news/article.cfm?c_id=26&objectid=10727607

[Pussy]

Are you sitting down?
Okay, here's the bombshell. The volcanic eruption in Iceland, since its first spewing of volcanic ash has, in just FOUR DAYS, NEGATED EVERY SINGLE EFFORT you have made in the past five years to control CO2 emissions on our planet – all of you.

Of course you know about this evil carbon dioxide that we are trying to suppress – it’s that vital chemical compound that every plant requires to live and grow, and to synthesize into oxygen for us humans, and all animal life.



I know, it's very disheartening to realize that all of the carbon emission savings you have accomplished while suffering the inconvenience and expense of: driving Priushybrids, buying fabric grocery bags, sitting up till midnight to finish your kid's "The Green Revolution" science project, throwing out all of your non-green cleaning supplies, using only two squares of toilet paper, putting a brick in your toilet tank reservoir, selling your SUV and speedboat, vacationing at home instead of abroad, nearly getting hit every day on your bicycle, replacing all of your 50 cent light bulbs with $10.00 light bulbs...well, all of those things you have done have all gone down the tubes in just four days.



The volcanic ash emitted into the Earth's atmosphere in just four days - yes - FOUR DAYS ONLY by that volcano in Iceland, has totally erased every single effort you have made to reduce the evil beast, carbon. And there are around 200 active volcanoes on the planet spewing out this crud any one time - EVERY DAY.



I don't really want to rain on your parade too much, but I should mention that when the volcano Mt Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines in 1991, it spewed out more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire human race had emitted in its entire YEARS on earth. Yes folks, Mt Pinatubo was active for over one year – think about it.



Of course I shouldn't spoil this touchy-feely tree-hugging moment and mention the effect of solar and cosmic activity and the well-recognized 800-year global heating and cooling cycle, which keeps happening, despite our completely insignificant efforts to affect climate change.



And I do wish I had a silver lining to this volcanic ash cloud but the fact of the matter is that the brush fire season across the western USA and Australia this year alone will negate your efforts to reduce carbon in our world for the next two to three years. And it happens every year.



Just remember that your government just tried to impose a whopping new carbon tax on you on the basis of the bogus “human-caused” climate change scenario.



Hey, isn’t it interesting how they don’t mention “Global Warming” any more, but just “Climate Change” - you know why? It’s because the planet has COOLED by 0.7 degrees in the past century and these global warming bull artists got caught with their pants down.



And just keep in mind that you might yet have an Emissions Trading Scheme – that whopping new tax – imposed on you, that will achieve absolutely nothing except make you poorer. It won’t stop any volcanoes from erupting, that’s for sure.



But hey, relax, give the world a hug and have a nice day!



PS: I wonder if Iceland is buying carbon offsets?

[Pussy]

^ shameless copy and paste of an email I got... but a goodie! :)

[Jantar]

^ shameless copy and paste of an email I got... but a goodie! :)
It does make good reading, but unfortuantely is not correct. I have posted the correct data previously (I think it was this thread but may have been an earlier global warming one). From memory, and without going back and looking for my other post on it, the amount of CO2 was in the order of 300 MT which is about the amount of fuel used by aircraft in europe in one week.

[Scuba_Steve]

It does make good reading, but unfortuantely is not correct. I have posted the correct data previously (I think it was this thread but may have been an earlier global warming one). From memory, and without going back and looking for my other post on it, the amount of CO2 was in the order of 300 MT which is about the amount of fuel used by aircraft in europe in one week.

I do like tho how before the volcano it was all "if a volcano goes off it spits out more CO2 than the world would in a year or 10" (or something to that degree anyways) yet afterwards its "oh na it doesn't spit out that much, less than a plane or SUV".

But don't worry people I've been driving round a vehicle thats chewing up gas & pumping out smoke, just doing my part to help make the world a warmer place :yes:

[shrub]

It does make good reading, but unfortuantely is not correct. I have posted the correct data previously (I think it was this thread but may have been an earlier global warming one). From memory, and without going back and looking for my other post on it, the amount of CO2 was in the order of 300 MT which is about the amount of fuel used by aircraft in europe in one week.

A lot of rubbish like that circulates and people take it seriously and believe it because they want to believe it because believing the alternative view means they might need to make some changes to their lifestyle. The PR companies working for the deniers have done well - circulating half truths and distortions of the truth that sound credible and fit the belief needs of their audience. They aren't subject to the same criteria that the scientific community are, so their work doesn't get checked and double checked before it gets released.

It reminds me of an argument put forward by the tobacco industry that cigarettes were good for your lungs because they encouraged coughing which in turn helped clean toxins from your lungs.

[Jantar]

A lot of rubbish like that circulates and people take it seriously and believe it because they want to believe it because believing the alternative view means they might need to make some changes to their lifestyle. .

Exactly. A perfect example of this in action is:


The PR companies working for the deniers have done well - circulating half truths and distortions of the truth that sound credible and fit the belief needs of their audience. .....

Who are these deniers? What do they deny? And please, please, name one of these PR companies and give an example of their work.

[puddytat]

Man theres so many self righteous,self serving & self centered cunts in the world.....
No wonder we're fucked.

[Winston001]

al
Man theres so many self righteous,self serving & self centered cunts in the world.....
No wonder we're fucked.

True but they tend to be sports idols, music mavens, pretty boy/girl actors, and Donald Trump. :devil2:



The one group that isn't dishonest or egotistical are scientists.

[Woodman]

like I have said before we need terrorists, proper terrorists that are willing to kill the polluters and the decision makers that support the polluters, and the distibutors of the polluters products.

An offshoot of their terrorism will be the lowering of the population which will be a bonus.

I see no other way, as there are too many hands in the cookie jar to actually make a decision to do something about it.

Sometimes we just gotta get into a fight.:ar15::ar15:

[Woodman]

The one group that isn't dishonest or egotistical are scientists.

Depends who is paying the scientists.

Depends on what information they choose to release.

[mashman]

Are you sitting down?
Okay, here's the bombshell. The volcanic eruption in Iceland, since its first spewing of volcanic ash has, in just FOUR DAYS, NEGATED EVERY SINGLE EFFORT you have made in the past five years to control CO2 emissions on our planet – all of you.

Of course you know about this evil carbon dioxide that we are trying to suppress – it’s that vital chemical compound that every plant requires to live and grow, and to synthesize into oxygen for us humans, and all animal life.



I know, it's very disheartening to realize that all of the carbon emission savings you have accomplished while suffering the inconvenience and expense of: driving Priushybrids, buying fabric grocery bags, sitting up till midnight to finish your kid's "The Green Revolution" science project, throwing out all of your non-green cleaning supplies, using only two squares of toilet paper, putting a brick in your toilet tank reservoir, selling your SUV and speedboat, vacationing at home instead of abroad, nearly getting hit every day on your bicycle, replacing all of your 50 cent light bulbs with $10.00 light bulbs...well, all of those things you have done have all gone down the tubes in just four days.



The volcanic ash emitted into the Earth's atmosphere in just four days - yes - FOUR DAYS ONLY by that volcano in Iceland, has totally erased every single effort you have made to reduce the evil beast, carbon. And there are around 200 active volcanoes on the planet spewing out this crud any one time - EVERY DAY.



I don't really want to rain on your parade too much, but I should mention that when the volcano Mt Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines in 1991, it spewed out more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire human race had emitted in its entire YEARS on earth. Yes folks, Mt Pinatubo was active for over one year – think about it.



Of course I shouldn't spoil this touchy-feely tree-hugging moment and mention the effect of solar and cosmic activity and the well-recognized 800-year global heating and cooling cycle, which keeps happening, despite our completely insignificant efforts to affect climate change.



And I do wish I had a silver lining to this volcanic ash cloud but the fact of the matter is that the brush fire season across the western USA and Australia this year alone will negate your efforts to reduce carbon in our world for the next two to three years. And it happens every year.



Just remember that your government just tried to impose a whopping new carbon tax on you on the basis of the bogus “human-caused” climate change scenario.



Hey, isn’t it interesting how they don’t mention “Global Warming” any more, but just “Climate Change” - you know why? It’s because the planet has COOLED by 0.7 degrees in the past century and these global warming bull artists got caught with their pants down.



And just keep in mind that you might yet have an Emissions Trading Scheme – that whopping new tax – imposed on you, that will achieve absolutely nothing except make you poorer. It won’t stop any volcanoes from erupting, that’s for sure.



But hey, relax, give the world a hug and have a nice day!



PS: I wonder if Iceland is buying carbon offsets?

like the one in Chile that's supposedly going to affect NZ airspace. (http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-stories/9623943/volcanic-ash-on-way-to-nz-airspace/)...

[puddytat]

like I have said before we need terrorists, proper terrorists that are willing to kill the polluters and the decision makers that support the polluters, and the distibutors of the polluters products.

An offshoot of their terrorism will be the lowering of the population which will be a bonus.

I see no other way, as there are too many hands in the cookie jar to actually make a decision to do something about it.

Sometimes we just gotta get into a fight.:ar15::ar15:

This is something I've often wondered......why hav'nt there been targeted attacks against the Evil Empire or why hasnt there been a more direct action squad raise its head somewhere?:scratch:No good smashing some town up when the G8 or whatever are in town.....:killingme
Ive already got a list prepared.....:mad:
But...we wont go into that here, as Waihopai is still operational;):psst:

[Edbear]

This is something I've often wondered......why hav'nt there been targeted attacks against the Evil Empire or why hasnt there been a more direct action squad raise its head somewhere?:scratch:No good smashing some town up when the G8 or whatever are in town.....:killingme
Ive already got a list prepared.....:mad:
But...we wont go into that here, as Waihopai is still operational;):psst:

Because consumers don't want to stop consuming and don't want to work to produce the basics of life. They want to buy them and have someone else clean up after them. Far too busy trying to earn enough money to pay the bills and buy some toys. No time or energy left to change their whole way of life.

As people become more prosperous, ie: China for example, the demand for consumer goods and a higher standard of living grows exponentially and places ever increasing demands on producers and the environment.

[Oakie]

It does make good reading, but unfortuantely is not correct. I have posted the correct data previously (I think it was this thread but may have been an earlier global warming one). From memory, and without going back and looking for my other post on it, the amount of CO2 was in the order of 300 MT which is about the amount of fuel used by aircraft in europe in one week.

I received that e-mail last week. No actual figures quoted so I did my own research. It came to 200 to 300 million tonnes by volcano (depending on the expert used) while fossil fuels weighed in at 23 billion tonnes. Roughly then, fossil fuels account for 100 times more that volcanos.

[Jantar]

..... It came to 200 to 300 million tonnes by volcano (depending on the expert used) while fossil fuels weighed in at 23 billion tonnes. Roughly then, fossil fuels account for 100 times more that volcanos.
Remember that there are around 80 - 100 volcanos active at any one time and generally at least 2 major volcanos erupting at any one time, with more than 100 major eruption per year, hence volcanos do emit more CO2 than do humans.

There are currently 4 major eruptions in progress, but we only hear about one because it disrupts air travel. How about Nabro in Ethiopia, or Kizimen on the Kamchatka Peninsula, or here http://www.volcano.si.edu/reports/usgs/ just look for yourself. :D

[Maki]

Remember that there are around 80 - 100 volcanos active at any one time and generally at least 2 major volcanos erupting at any one time, with more than 100 major eruption per year, hence volcanos do emit more CO2 than do humans.

There are currently 4 major eruptions in progress, but we only hear about one because it disrupts air travel. How about Nabro in Ethiopia, or Kizimen on the Kamchatka Peninsula, or here http://www.volcano.si.edu/reports/usgs/ just look for yourself. :D

I am not going to tell you what I think about your deductive powers since I have nothing compassionate to say about them...

************************************************** ******************************************

http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/2007/07_02_15.html

"Our studies show that globally, volcanoes on land and under the sea release a total of about 200 million tonnes of CO2 annually."

"This seems like a huge amount of CO2, but a visit to the U.S. Department of Energy's Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) website (http://cdiac.ornl.gov/) helps anyone armed with a handheld calculator and a high school chemistry text put the volcanic CO2 tally into perspective. Because while 200 million tonnes of CO2 is large, the global fossil fuel CO2 emissions for 2003 tipped the scales at 26.8 billion tonnes. Thus, not only does volcanic CO2 not dwarf that of human activity, it actually comprises less than 1 percent of that value."

************************************************** ***********************************************

In your own mind I am sure, Jantar that you know far more than the USGS could ever hope to know, and that is just fine...

[Jantar]

I am not going to tell you what I think about your deductive powers since I have nothing compassionate to say about them...

************************************************** ******************************************

http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/2007/07_02_15.html

"Our studies show that globally, volcanoes on land and under the sea release a total of about 200 million tonnes of CO2 annually."

"This seems like a huge amount of CO2, but a visit to the U.S. Department of Energy's Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) website (http://cdiac.ornl.gov/) helps anyone armed with a handheld calculator and a high school chemistry text put the volcanic CO2 tally into perspective. Because while 200 million tonnes of CO2 is large, the global fossil fuel CO2 emissions for 2003 tipped the scales at 26.8 billion tonnes. Thus, not only does volcanic CO2 not dwarf that of human activity, it actually comprises less than 1 percent of that value."

************************************************** ***********************************************

In your own mind I am sure, Jantar that you know far more than the USGS could ever hope to know, and that is just fine...

Perhaps you should re-read what I wrote. I was working from memory, and after reading your outburst I went and found the origional quote based on the Eyjafloell eruption which lasted for 10 days.


Iceland's Eyjafjoell volcano is emitting between 150,000 and 300,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2) per day, a figure placing it in the same emissions league as a small-to-medium European economy, experts said on Monday.

I was out by a factor of 100. It was 300 KT per day per volcano which equates to 3 MT, not 300 MT, so on that basis it is likely man does pump more CO2 into the atmosphere than do known volcanos. We do not know how much more because volcanic emmissions are only ever an estimate and could be out by an order of magnitude either way.

[Winston001]

I was out by a factor of 100. It was 300 KT per day per volcano which equates to 3 MT, not 300 MT, so on that basis it is likely man does pump more CO2 into the atmosphere than do known volcanos. We do not know how much more because volcanic emmissions are only ever an estimate and could be out by an order of magnitude either way.

There's not much to debate Jantar. Most carbon released into the environment comes from natural sources including volcanoes. Climate scientists know this. The human addition is about 4% which sounds insignificant but compounded over 150 years adds up to a lot extra.

As we've discussed many times before, carbon is simply the easiest symptom of human influence on the environment to track. And importantly for the public to understand.

I agree with you wholeheartedly that pollution from complex organics and heavy metals are the real problem. Nevertheless these flow directly from carbon based demands ergo reduce carbon = other types of pollution fall.

[Jantar]

No debate there Winston, pollution is a major concern that we must address. I also agree that many of the processes that produce CO2 also produce many of the nasties that cause pollution. However not all fall into this category.

What many people forget is that we are a carbon based life form. We need Carbon to survive, and our main food source, plants, need CO2 for photosynthesis. So CO2 is a fertiliser, not a pollutant.

Maybe I'm too focussed, but I have no trouble is seperating the climate issue from the pollution issue.

[Swoop]

and we are still not at the temperatures where they had vineyards in Britain and that was only back in Roman Britain times.
Rubbish.
Britain had vines introduced by the Romans and there have been vineyards there ever since.
Climate taxing (Oops... "change":rolleyes:) has nothing to do with it.

[NighthawkNZ]

Maybe I'm too focussed, but I have no trouble is seperating the climate issue from the pollution issue.

Totally agree.. there is a big difference and people seem blur the two...

[oneofsix]

Totally agree.. there is a big difference and people seem blur the two...

Which alludes to my biggest bitch about the climate change thing. There is such a focus on the climate change that it seems to be ok to pollute the planet, poison it, provided you can show a reduction in carbon output. Yet even if we stop carbon output totally now we make fuck all difference and human carbon contribution is in the single %s anyhow.

[oneofsix]

Rubbish.
Britain had vines introduced by the Romans and there have been vineyards there ever since.
Climate taxing (Oops... "change":rolleyes:) has nothing to do with it.

Yep sunny Britain with Romans planting vines in their time, frozen Thames in the early industrial revolution, and Britain not quite back to the Romain temperates, you sure called BS on that. :bs:

[Swoop]

and Britain not quite back to the Romain temperates
The temperature changes over the years have not prevented vines from existing in the UK over all of that time.

You stated that "we are still not at the temperatures where they had vineyards in Britain".
There have been vines there all the time since the Romans popped over for a visit.

[oneofsix]

The temperature changes over the years have not prevented vines from existing in the UK over all of that time.

You stated that "we are still not at the temperatures where they had vineyards in Britain".
There have been vines there all the time since the Romans popped over for a visit.

Yes and vines are rather more hardy than I initially gave them credit for. I did kind of steal the comment from a British historical programme. But as I understand it when the Romains had their little holiday in Britain, more England than Britain at that, the vine lands were much more extensive gaining it the nickname vineland as opposite to vineyards surviving. The temperatures are still lower than in those days.

[Swoop]

Yes and vines are rather more hardy than I initially gave them credit for.
From the reading I have done on this topic, they appear to be a tasty drop as well! Some say they are nicer than the cheese-easting surrender monkey's wine.:drool:

[oneofsix]

From the reading I have done on this topic, they appear to be a tasty drop as well! Some say they are nicer than the cheese-easting surrender monkey's wine.:drool:

Thanks for reminding, got a nephew over in Blighty sitting his wine tasting exams. Would be nice to think he could supply a drop or two. :psst: Why can't NZ call it is champaign style wines champaign? Cause the NZ stuff bet the surrender monkeys in the wine tasting comps.

Anyways back to polluting our home planet.

[Winston001]

Which alludes to my biggest bitch about the climate change thing. There is such a focus on the climate change that it seems to be ok to pollute the planet, poison it, provided you can show a reduction in carbon output. Yet even if we stop carbon output totally now we make fuck all difference and human carbon contribution is in the single %s anyhow.

AHA!! Caught you. ;) Confusing pollution with climate change.

.......ok its damned hard not to.

Here's my take on it:

1. Nobody - including climate scientists, says the Earth's climate doesn't change all by itself.

2. The argument is that human activity has added an extra load of carbon into the environment since the Industrial Revolution. Scientists say thats pushing a fast climate change. Oil companies and deniers disagree.

3. Leave No 2 aside and accept change is normal. Even fast change. So we need to build away from sea-level, anticipate warming trends, and violent weather. The weather comes from more energy in the atmosphere.

4. Crucially IMHO we are poisoning our air, water, and soil with our lifestyles. Mainly the poisons are complex hydrocarbons (methane, plastics, sprays, fertilisers, etc) but also simple CO2. These come from oil and coal.

5. But there are other serious poisons such as cadmium, zinc, copper, and lead. My understanding is that these are mainly used and released into the environment because we rely on oil and coal for energy.

6. In summary if man can find reliable sources of energy not derived from carbon, the other pollutants will fall.

[oneofsix]

AHA!! Caught you. ;) Confusing pollution with climate change.

.......ok its damned hard not to.

Here's my take on it:

1. Nobody - including climate scientists, says the Earth's climate doesn't change all by itself.

2. The argument is that human activity has added an extra load of carbon into the environment since the Industrial Revolution. Scientists say thats pushing a fast climate change. Oil companies and deniers disagree.

3. Leave No 2 aside and accept change is normal. Even fast change. So we need to build away from sea-level, anticipate warming trends, and violent weather. The weather comes from more energy in the atmosphere.

4. Crucially IMHO we are poisoning our air, water, and soil with our lifestyles. Mainly the poisons are complex hydrocarbons (methane, plastics, sprays, fertilisers, etc) but also simple CO2. These come from oil and coal.

5. But there are other serious poisons such as cadmium, zinc, copper, and lead. My understanding is that these are mainly used and released into the environment because we rely on oil and coal for energy.

6. In summary if man can find reliable sources of energy not derived from carbon, the other pollutants will fall.

Not really you cause the loudest group shouting about climate change rabbit on about human carbon emissions and carbon trading and such like. My point was that those people are happy to pollute as long as its not carbon. I didn't say that carbon emissions weren't pollution.
1. sometimes do wonder but at the scientist level I agree, not so sure about Green politicians and such like :p
2. Oil companies are big sponsors of the anti-carbon climate change groups. Why? To push up prices? They are certainly making bigger profits with the higher fuel prices - the companies not the retailers.
3. yes and that energy could be nuclear (sun spots etc for the dumb arses)
4. Every animal does. We are particularly good (bad if you prefer) at it yes. Carbon not so sure as it just goes around and around the system and earth is based on carbon based life forms. Rumour is the Maori channel had a good program on it, Crude I think it was called.
5. yes to the first part
6.false we will still use and release the other pollutants

[Edbear]

Number 2 is accurate though, in that scientists are definitely saying the Industrial Revolution has contributed hugely to the amount of CO2 and other poisonous gasses in our atmosphere.

[Scuba_Steve]

6. In summary if man can find reliable sources of energy not derived from carbon, the other pollutants will fall.

you sure about that? In our "fight to stop carbon" we have increased use of mercury laden products after spending decades trying to decrease them, we're trying to taint & possibly poison our meat supply to try & stop something natural from farting, we are destroying the earth to produce "eco friendly" vehicles, we use cheaper 3rd world countries with less to no "substance controls" to deal with our polluting substances so we can save moneys & claim "our country has less pollution" all the while destroying the earth more than had we processed them ourselves.

IMO this whole "fight" is at the least a case of the path to Hell is paved with good intentions at the most a pure corporate lets make some $$$ no matter what the "cost"

[Edbear]

you sure about that? In our "fight to stop carbon" we have increased use of mercury laden products after spending decades trying to decrease them, we're trying to taint & possibly poison our meat supply to try & stop something natural from farting, we are destroying the earth to produce "eco friendly" vehicles, we use cheaper 3rd world countries with less to no "substance controls" to deal with our polluting substances so we can save moneys & claim "our country has less pollution" all the while destroying the earth more than had we processed them ourselves.

IMO this whole "fight" is at the least a case of the path to Hell is paved with good intentions at the most a pure corporate lets make some $$$ no matter what the "cost"

What!? You're surely not suggesting that big business is only concerned with $$$, are you...? :gob:

[Scuba_Steve]

What!? You're surely not suggesting that big business is only concerned with $$$, are you...? :gob:

that depends... are they watching right now :shifty:

[shrub]

No debate there Winston, pollution is a major concern that we must address. I also agree that many of the processes that produce CO2 also produce many of the nasties that cause pollution. However not all fall into this category.

What many people forget is that we are a carbon based life form. We need Carbon to survive, and our main food source, plants, need CO2 for photosynthesis. So CO2 is a fertiliser, not a pollutant..

Yes, we do need CO2 in the atmosphere, but not at the levels it is now and especially not at the levels it will be in the future. We also depend on water for our survival, but flooding is destructive. I liken it to the internal combustion engine - my Trumpy runs very nicely right now, it starts readily, delivers even power throughout the rev range, runs smoothly and is pretty good on gas, yet if I change the ratio of fuel to air by the smallest amount it runs like a bag of arseholes, if at all. it's like that with the atmosphere - we're enriching the mixture and it's already starting to run rough and if we don't change what we're doing it will stall.



Maybe I'm too focussed, but I have no trouble is seperating the climate issue from the pollution issue

Actually they're one and the same - carbon is a pollutant when you get over a certain level in the same way that some shit is normal in a river but once you get over a certain level it becomes a pollutant and destroys life.

[Winston001]

. Carbon not so sure as it just goes around and around the system and earth is based on carbon based life forms. Rumour is the Maori channel had a good program on it, Crude I think it was called.



Shrub nicely addresses this above.

The concentrated organic hydrocarbons we gleefully extract from oil and coal took 300 million years to accumulate. We are releasing all of them in 200 years. That is not the natural cycle of the planet.


Don't get me wrong by the way, I love oil and coal. :D I'd prefer we remained blissfully ignorant.

[oneofsix]

Shrub nicely addresses this above.

The concentrated organic hydrocarbons we gleefully extract from oil and coal took 300 million years to accumulate. We are releasing all of them in 200 years. That is not the natural cycle of the planet.


Don't get me wrong by the way, I love oil and coal. :D I'd prefer we remained blissfully ignorant.

If the programme is the one I think it is you will see it took a lot less time than that for them to accumulate however it may well have taken 300 million years to convert them in to oil, gas and coal deposits. The interesting thing is where they came from as well.
Wont argue that we are releasing them because that is rather obvious and it about time I freed a few more.

[Winston001]

you sure about that? In our "fight to stop carbon" we have increased use of mercury laden products after spending decades trying to decrease them, we're trying to taint & possibly poison our meat supply to try & stop something natural from farting, we are destroying the earth to produce "eco friendly" vehicles...



To be honest I'm not completely sure. Cracking oil and burning coal releases some metals while others are the result of the minerals we use to enjoy the energy.

To take your point, all the enthusiasm for electric cars ignores the gigantic amount of copper required. And it also ignores all the new cadmium and lead required for batteries. Not using petrol won't stop those being mined and spread around.

Yes - you'll find wonderful new materials discussed on the net but right now, today, if you want non-carbon energy you need lead, cadmium, and copper. Plus a lot more.

[Scuba_Steve]

The concentrated organic hydrocarbons we gleefully extract from oil and coal took 300 million years to accumulate.


If the programme is the one I think it is you will see it took a lot less time than that for them to accumulate however it may well have taken 300 million years to convert them in to oil, gas and coal deposits. The interesting thing is where they came from as well.

But lets face it our knowledge on that is about as good as our knowledge on when it's going to run out... & that's happened 3x already right???:blink: yet here we are using more than ever. :facepalm:

[Winston001]

If the programme is the one I think it is you will see it took a lot less time than that for them to accumulate however it may well have taken 300 million years to convert them in to oil, gas and coal deposits.

The Carboniferous Period dates from 300 million years and that's the strata coal first appears in.

Oil - to my surprise - seems to be younger. 112 million years (although 60 million is another figure). Must say I thought they were directly related.

[Edbear]

The Carboniferous Period dates from 300 million years and that's the strata coal first appears in.

Oil - to my surprise - seems to be younger. 112 million years (although 60 million is another figure). Must say I thought they were directly related.

The problem is that dating the Earth and what's in it is, in the end, a consensus of best guesses with some very wide variations. Even the actual age of the Earth is, while generally thought by consensus to be about 4.5b years, actually varies considerably from much older to much younger depending upon the scientist.

There was some research done not too long ago that suggested the oil in the ground may have formed much faster than traditionally thought and by a different way. I'll see if I can find it. Something about not being from animal sources. Anyone seen it?

[Ocean1]

There was some research done not too long ago that suggested the oil in the ground may have formed much faster than traditionally thought and by a different way.

The abiotic theory of origin.

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59991

[Winston001]

The problem is that dating the Earth and what's in it is, in the end, a consensus of best guesses with some very wide variations. Even the actual age of the Earth is, while generally thought by consensus to be about 4.5b years, actually varies considerably from much older to much younger depending upon the scientist.



So far as I know geologic age is well understood. The methods used are the decay rates of isotopes (carbon, potassium, radium) and the concentration of elements found in meteorites. The Earth can't be older than the Sun or the meteorites so their composition is a sound base to work from.

Happy to be corrected though.

[Edbear]

The abiotic theory of origin.

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59991

That's the one. Interesting if it's true, and may mean we're not so much in danger of running out as we are from the oil-producing nations manipulating the supply.